Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search
background image
profile image

Constitutional Court of South Africa

The Constitutional Court of South Africa is a supreme constitutional court established by the Constitution of South Africa, and is the apex court in the South African judicial system, with general jurisdiction. The Court was first established by the Interim Constitution of 1993, and its first session began in February 1995. It has continued in existence under the Constitution of 1996. The Court sits in the city of Johannesburg. The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to hear any matter if it is in the interests of justice for it to do so. (Banner image credit: By André-Pierre from Stellenbosch, South Africa.)
Physical address
Constitutional Court, 1 Hospital Street, Constitution Hill, Braamfontein, South Africa, 2017
Visit website
https://www.concourt.org.za/
4 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
4 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
October 1997
S v Ntsele (CCT 25/97) [1997] ZACC 14 (14 October 1997)
Reported
A statutory presumption shifting the legal burden breaches the constitutional presumption of innocence and is invalid.
Constitutional law – statutory presumptions – presumption placing legal burden on accused (s 21(1)(b) Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act) violates the presumption of innocence; limitation of rights – infringement unjustified under interim or new Constitution; transitional provisions – item 17 sch 6 and applicability of new Constitution; remedies – confirmation of invalidity, limited retrospective effect, interlocutory relief and remittal to High Court; guidance on suspension/retrospectivity and procedural safeguards.
 14 October 1997
Hekpoort Environmental Preservation Society and Another v Minister of Land Affairs and Others [1997] ZACC 13 (8 October 1997)
Reported
Direct access refused: no exceptional circumstances and disputed facts require trial court process.
Constitutional Court — Rule 17 direct access — exceptional circumstances required — environmental urgency insufficient; procedural non‑compliance undermining access claims; security for costs and right of access to courts; disputed facts requiring oral evidence; referral under section 102(1) interim Constitution; Court will not act as court of first instance for matters pending in High Court.
 8 October 1997
Harksen v Lane NO and Others [1997] ZACC 12 (7 October 1997)
Reported
Whether automatic vesting of a solvent spouse’s property on sequestration breaches property or equality rights.
Insolvency law – spouse’s property – s 21 Insolvency Act – automatic vesting in Master/trustee – whether expropriation under property clause; equality – differentiation of solvent spouses – unfair discrimination analysis; creditors’ meetings – ss 64–65 scope and limits – relevance to insolvent estate; privilege and self‑incrimination – presiding officer must disallow questions infringing chapter 3 rights; criminal sanction – answers to unlawfully put questions not punishable.
 7 October 1997
Lawrence v S and Another ; Negal v S and Another ; Solberg v S and Another (CCT 38/96; CCT 39/1996; CCT 40/96) [1997] ZACC 11 (6 October 1997)
Reported
Court upholds Liquor Act licensing, hours and product restrictions (rational‑basis review); closed‑day religious concern but limitation justified.
Constitutional law — procedure — admission of new factual/expert evidence on direct appeal — scope of rules 19 and 34 — rule 34 limits to common‑cause or easily verifiable official/scientific/statistical facts. Constitutional law — socioeconomic rights — section 26 (interim Constitution) — interpretation: subsections read together; review on rational‑basis standard for measures designed to promote listed objectives. Administrative/licensing law — Liquor Act — licensing scheme, hours/days and product‑type restrictions upheld as rationally connected to legitimate public objectives. Constitutional law — religion — section 14 — state selection of Christian‑based closed days may carry sectarian symbolism, but limitation may be justified under section 33.
 6 October 1997