Search

In Daniels v Scribante (hereafter the Daniels case) the Constitutional Court had to decide whether: (a) the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA) afforded Ms Daniels the right to make improvements to her dwelling; (b) if consent from the person in charge, Mr Scribante, was a requirement for Ms Daniels to make such improvements; and (c) if consent was not a requirement, if Ms Daniels could effect improvements to the total disregard of Mr Scribante. The judgment in Daniels is important not only because it paved the way for Ms Daniels to effect improvements on her existing dwelling without the consent of Mr Scribante, but also because it showed that under section 8(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereafter the Constitution) on the application of the Bill of Rights Mr Scribante owed a positive obligation to Ms Daniels to ensure that she lived in conditions that afforded her human dignity. In Daniels the Constitutional Court indicated that private landowners were enjoined by section 25(6) of the Constitution through ESTA to accommodate ESTA occupiers on their land. According to the Constitutional Court in Daniels, the nature of the obligation imposed by section 25(6) of the Constitution was both negative and positive, and in this particular case it rested on Mr Scribante. Against this background, this case note provides at the outset the salient facts and judgment of the Daniels case. This is followed by an analysis aimed at critiquing the judgment in Daniels pertaining to what is expected of private landowners in the new constitutional dispensation. It is concluded that more may be required from the private landowner – a positive duty – to ensure that ESTA occupiers enjoy fundamental rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land and land rights remain a contested issue in South Africa. Grobler v Phillips centered on the eviction of an 86-year-old woman, Mrs Phillips, and her disabled son from property she had lived on since she was 11 years old. After a fourteen-year court battle the Constitutional Court granted an eviction order against Mrs Phillips. This case note consists of a discussion of the judgments of the Magistrate's Court, High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court. It is found that the Constitutional Court erred in its decision as it applied a formalistic approach, disregarded the narrative of the occupier and did not sufficiently challenge the current neo-liberal regime in which property rights operate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 28 June 2022 the apex or Constitutional Court (CC) handed down a much-awaited judgment which impacts upon Muslim marriages concluded purely in terms of Islamic law in South Africa. Does the judgment mean that such Muslim marriages are now fully recognised for all purposes in the South African legal context? The simple answer is "no". The rationale for this conclusion is to be found in the two-pronged judgment. The first part of the judgment is wholly suspended and will only and automatically come into effect if remedial legislation is not enacted in 24 months. The second part of the judgment pertains to an interim order which takes effect immediately and applies retrospectively to all Muslim marriages that subsisted on 15 December 2014 (when the case was first launched by the Women's Legal Centre in the Western Cape High Court) and to Muslim marriages which, although terminated before that date, were still subject to ongoing legal proceedings at that date. While the case note briefly refers to the first part of the judgment, the main purpose of this case note is to highlight some of the practical problems that could be encountered by couples when effect is given to the orders pertaining to the interim relief granted in terms of the second part of the judgment. The problem areas are highlighted by looking at the CC judgment in the light of three fictitious scenarios. The case note provides a few critical comments on the judgment and ends with a few concluding remarks. Past experience leads us to expect that tangible progress will take place only by 2024, a date which coincides with South Africa's next presidential election. Until then the non-recognition of Muslim marriages will continue to prove burdensome to Muslim women and children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although South African courts have handed down progressive judgments concerning the right to access to adequate housing, they have failed failed to do so from a feminist point of view. The trajectory of housing jurisprudence emanated from a sequence of evictions that occurred in Cape Town and the Johannesburg inner city. This article provides an analysis of four pertinent cases, namely Grootboom, Olivia Road, Blue Moonlight and Dladla. A gendered perspective was absent from the arguments before the court and from the court's interrogation and analysis of matters that came before it. This failure was a shortcoming, given the harsh lived realities that affect women who experience eviction based on their race, gender and class. It is against the backdrop of the failures of Constitutional Court cases that lawyers use feminist litigation approaches and courts in housing adjudication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 27 October 2020, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Aveng Trident Steel (A Division of Aveng Africa (Pty) Ltd) 2021 42 ILJ 67 (CC). Following the judgment, it is now commonplace that the amendment to section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 does not preclude an employer from dismissing employees for a permissible reason, such as its operational requirements, should they refuse to accept a demand. The court confirmed that in cases such as this where they are faced with two opposing reasons for the dismissal, an impermissible reason on the one hand and a permissible reason on the other, an enquiry must be conducted into what the true reason for the dismissal is. However, the approach to be followed in conducting this enquiry caused dissent. Half of the judges were of the view that the correct approach is to follow the causation test set out in SA Chemical Workers Union v Afrox Ltd 1999 20 ILJ 1718 (LAC), while the other half disavowed reliance on the causation test. Instead, they opted to support the enquiry conducted in Chemical Workers Industrial Union v Algorax (Pty) Ltd 2003 24 ILJ 1917 (LAC). This case note seeks to establish which approach should be followed in determining the true reason for an alleged section 187(1)(c) automatically unfair dismissal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the dominant approaches to statutory interpretation through a historical lens. It argues that for most of South Africa's history the methods of interpretation were twisted in order to give effect to the intentions of the legislature. This approach to interpretation has now been discarded into the waste bin of history, and intentionalism has been replaced with contextualism. Or so we are told. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 4 SA 593 (SCA) has been hailed as the new, settled approach to interpretation, with the Constitutional Court endorsing Endumeni on numerous occasions. But it appears from both the judgments of the Constitutional Court and those of other Courts that intentionalism is not yet dead. This paper argues that the reason for this is because Endumeni has not provided clarity to the process of interpretation that it proclaims to do. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the creation of the Constitutional Court in 1994 in South Africa and its judgments from 1995 to 2012. Topics mentioned include the different reasons the Court rejected some of the cases during that time and invalidated others, its direct access, and the several applications for leave to appeal against judgments of the Supreme Court of Appeal and other different courts.