Posted on 13 August 2018
The judgment, delivered on 13 August 2018, is available for download here: Judgment – CCT 333-17 Corruption Watch NPC v President of the Republic o….
Former President Zuma, NDPP Shaun Abrahams and the National Prosecuting Authority sought leave to appeal against the High Court’s order declaring the agreement between Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Mr Nxasana and the payment of a settlement amount of R17.3 million which resulted in the termination of Mr Nxasana’s term of office as NDPP invalid, as well as declaring the appointment of Mr Abrahams invalid.
The former President appealed against the High Court’s order directing the Deputy President to appoint a new NDPP while Mr Abrahams and the NPA appeal against the setting aside of Mr Abrahams’ appointment. In a separate application which was heard together with the confirmation proceedings, Mr Nxasana seeks leave to appeal against the High Court’s refusal of condonation. Corruption Watch and Freedom Under Law seek the reinstatement of Mr Nxasana.
The majority of the Constitutional Court found that the agreement that terminated Mr Nxasana’s term as NDPP was invalid and so was the appointment of Mr Abrahams. The majority found that the President must now appoint a new NDPP, whilst the minority would have found that Mr Nxasana should have resumed in the position.
||Lower Court Judgments
||Application for direct access
||20 Aug. 2015
By Duncan Wild on 11 July 2015
This is is an application for direct access to the Constitutional Court claiming that Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures failed to comply with their constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement before passing the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act 15 of 2004 (“the Amendment Act“). The applicants are therefore seeking an order that the Amendment be declared invalid.
The Amendment Act primarily re-opens the opportunity to lodge land claims until 30 June 2019. It also introduces offences related to lodging false claims, and makes changes to the to the composition of, and appointment of judges to, the Land Claims Court, amongst other things.
By Duncan Wild on 5 July 2015
The issues for determination in this case have been defined by the Court in directions issued on 18 February 2015, as follows:
- whether an order for reinstatement of an employee is competent in circumstances where such employee resigned prior to the grant of such order;
- whether the dismissal of a review application by the Labour Court, on the basis that the record of the arbitration proceedings is incomplete, is a denial of the applicant’s right to just administrative justice;
- who bears the onus or obligation to produce a proper and complete record of proceedings in anticipation of the adjudication of review proceedings; and
- what the consequences in review proceedings are when the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) or the parties to the dispute are unable to produce a proper and complete record of the proceedings.
By Duncan Wild on 5 July 2015
The issue for determination in this case is whether an order in terms of section 78 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944 (allowing the execution and enforcement of an order of a Magistrate’s Court compelling eviction pending an appeal against that order), particularly where the main order is an order of eviction, is appealable, and if whether the enforcement of the eviction in this case should be set aside.
By Duncan Wild on 4 July 2015
The matter involves a determination of whether the holder of a petroleum products licence can be evicted from the property at which it holds the licence. Continue reading
On 9 July 2015, the Judicial Service Commission will interview candidates to fill the vacancy on the Constitutional Court left when Justice Skweyiya retired in February 2014.
The candidates are:
- Judge Nonkosi Mhlantla, whose application can be viewed here.
- Judge Dhayanithie Pillay, whose application can be viewed here.
- Judge Leona Theron, whose application can be viewed here.
- Judge Zukisa Tshiqi, whose application can be viewed here.
A brief overview of the candidates is provided below. Continue reading
By Duncan Wild on 30 June 2015
The case involves whether the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (“PRASA“) fulfilled its statutory and constitutional duties as an organ of state to take reasonable measures to provide for the safety of passengers, in particular, Mr Irvine Mashongwa, and in particular, if it did fail to take such measures, was that failure causally connected to an attack that Mr Mashongwa suffered whilst travelling on a train operated by PRASA.