Monthly Archives: October 2014

National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v Southern African Litigation Centre and Others

Posted on by
Reply
Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date Judgment Date Majority Author  Vote
CCT 2/14 North Gauteng High Court, 12 May 2012
SCA, 27 Nov. 2013		 19 May 2014 30 Oct. 2014 Majiedt AJ  Unanimous

On 30 October 2014

The central question in this case is the extent to which the South African Police Service (SAPS) has domestic and/or international law obligations to investigate alleged crimes against humanity, including torture, committed by Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe.  The High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA) found that, on the facts of this particular case, SAPS were indeed obliged to investigate these allegations.

The Constitutional Court in a unanimous judgment dismissed the appeal by the SAPS and ordered SAPS to investigate the alleged crimes.

Continue reading →

Acting Justices

Posted on by
Reply

Two acting justices are currently, or will soon be serving on the Constitutional Court, in view of the vacancies occassionaed by the retirement of Justice Skweyiya, and Justice Jafta’s leave.

Acting Justice Monica Leeuw, the Judge President of the North West Division has been appointed to serve from 1 August 2014 until 31 December 2014 in the place of Justice Skweyiya.

Acting Justice Zukisa Tshiqi, currently a serving on the Supreme Court of Appeal will serve from 1 November 2014 to 31 March 2014 in the place of Justice Jafta.

Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC for Infrastructure Development, Gauteng

Posted on by
Reply
Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date Judgment Date Majority Author  Vote
CCT 185/13  Gauteng Local Division, 8 Aug. 2012
SCA, 26 Nov. 2013		 20 May 2014 3 Oct. 2014 Khampepe J  Unanimous

By Duncan Wild on 3 October 2014

The primary question in this case was whether a third party can bring a claim against the party to a contract (where the claimant is not a party to the contract) as a result of loss suffered by the third party caused by the intentional repudiation of the contract.

The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous judgment by Justice Khampepe dismissed the appeal, finding that that cancellation of the contract in question was not wrongful as it did not fit within the existing law concerning interference with a contract, and nor was it necessary to recognise such a claim.

Continue reading →