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/
2 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
2 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
June 2006
Magajane v Chairperson, North West Gambling Board [2006] ZACC 8 (8 June 2006)
Reported
Warrantless, suspicion‑based searches of unlicensed gambling premises breached the constitutional right to privacy and are invalid.
Constitutional law; administrative inspections and searches — regulatory inspections can constitute searches under the right to privacy; warrantless searches of unlicensed commercial premises aimed at criminal evidence must satisfy section 36 proportionality and adequate safeguards; overbroad suspicion standards invalid; provincial competence question on deeming inspectors peace officers left undecided.
 8 June 2006
South African Liquor Traders Association and Others v Chairperson Gauteng Liquor Board and Others [2006] ZACC 7 (2 June 2006)
Reported
A vague statutory definition of "shebeen" was declared invalid; court imposed a six‑month suspended remedy and awarded costs against the state.
Constitutional law — Rule of law — Vagueness doctrine — Statutory definition invalid for failing to specify temporal element for quantitative limit; severance inappropriate where it frustrates statutory purpose — Reading-in and suspension of declaration as remedial tools — Interim reading-in of quantitative limit (60 cases/week) and six-month suspension — Permit conditions limiting liquor type or capping sales at ten cases/week ultra vires — Costs: attorney-and-client against MEC; wasted costs de bonis propriis against State Attorney.
 2 June 2006