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
7 judgments
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
7 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
March 2022
Reported
Whether an employer must reasonably accommodate an applicant who cannot meet an inherent physical job requirement.
Employment equity – disability – inherent requirement of a job vs reasonable accommodation – whether physical fitness requirement for operational firefighters justifies exclusion from advancement – interpretation and application of sections 5, 6(1), 6(2)(b) and 11(1) EEA; Code and CRPD as interpretive aids; burden on employer to justify discrimination.
30 March 2022
Reported
Higher-court precedent in Smit disposed of the merits; respondents ordered to pay applicants' High Court costs for failing to adduce that precedent.
Constitutional law – delegation of legislative power – section 63 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act – alleged delegation of plenary legislative power to Minister. Separation of powers – impermissible delegation – Smit precedent declaring section 63 invalid. Doctrine of precedent (stare decisis) and rule of law – lower courts bound by Constitutional Court decisions. Civil procedure – costs – consequences where a party or representative fails to draw binding precedent to trial court's attention. Evidence rule – application of Plascon-Evans in resolving disputed averments on affidavit regarding whether precedent was communicated to the trial judge.
25 March 2022
Reported
Whether factual causation in a birth-injury medical negligence claim engages the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction.
• Medical negligence – birth injury – factual causation – application of the ‘but for’ test and the flexible Lee approach (risk contribution/probable causation). • Concession of negligence at trial – attempted withdrawal on appeal – concession upheld as binding where unequivocal. • Constitutional jurisdiction – section 167(3)(b) – factual disputes do not engage Constitutional Court jurisdiction unless a constitutional issue or arguable point of law of general public importance is reasonably necessary to decide the case. • Improper reliance on factual findings in other cases – factual findings are case-specific and cannot be imported to the prejudice of a party’s right to test evidence.
25 March 2022
Reported
Leave to appeal dismissed: rule 46A was immaterial to the consent rescission order and the Court’s jurisdiction was not engaged.
Rule 46A — execution against residential immovable property — applicability to juristic persons and trusts; Consent orders and rescission proceedings — limits of rule 46A; Variation/rescission of consent orders — requirements of rule 42 and common law (mistake, ambiguity, fraud, sufficient cause); Constitutional Court jurisdiction — immaterial issues below do not engage jurisdiction.
15 March 2022
Reported
Whether a person wrongly admitted to a pension fund is a “complainant” under the Act and entitled to restitution.
Pension Funds Act — definitions of “complainant” and “complaint” — wide meaning of paragraph (d); Adjudicator jurisdiction to determine grievances about fund administration including ultra vires admissions; pension fund admissions beyond rules are nullities; estoppel/waiver cannot validate ultra vires acts; Adjudicator may order restitution (condictio indebiti) where enrichment and impoverishment established; limits on appellate review of factual rehearings under section 30P.
14 March 2022
Reported
A certified TAA statement (tax judgment) is susceptible to rescission; payment‑allocation disputes may fall outside Chapter 9.
Tax Administration Act – certified statement filed under ss 172 and 174 treated as civil judgment – rescindability of tax judgments; Interaction of s 170 (conclusive evidence) and Chapter 9 (objection/appeal) with rescission – limitations on bona fide defences; Distinction between challenges to assessments (Chapter 9) and payment/allocation disputes (may be cognisable in rescission); Binding precedent (Kruger; Metcash) requiring courts to recognise rescindability.
11 March 2022
Reported
An employer must link each person sought to be interdicted to unlawful conduct; mere strike participation is insufficient.
Constitutional law – right to strike and protest; final interdicts – requirement of a rational factual link between respondent and unlawful conduct; mere participation in strike insufficient; exception where protesters act cohesively or conceal identities; chilling effect on constitutional rights; courts in motion proceedings not bound by lower courts’ factual findings.
1 March 2022