A summary of the following cases in Fundamental Rights:
Soobramoney v Minister of Health;
Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign;
Ferreira v Levin;
Du Plessis v De Klerk;
Khumalo v Holomisai;
Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security;
De Lille v Speaker of the National Assembly;...
, CASES: FUR2601
Study Unit 1: Introduction to the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights
1. Ex parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Judgment → Decline to certify the text.
Assembly: in re Certification of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa The CC held → The provisions relating to provincial
1996. (First Certification judgment) 1996 powers, local government, entrenchment of the Bill of
Rights and Public Service Commission did not comply
with the Constitutional Principles.
Instead of an outright transmission of power there would
be a 2-stage transition. The interim government under the
interim would govern the country on a coalition basis
while the final was being drafted. An elected national
legislature would draft the new.
2. Certification of the Amended Text of the Judgment → Accepted the text to be consistent with the
Constitution fo the Republic of South Africa Constitutional Principles.
1996 (Second Certification judgment) 1997.
The CC held → Once the was certified - it is not
possible to object to the amendments of the 1996
Constitution on the basis of not complying with the
Principles.
→ A court should approach the meaning of the relevant
provision of the as assigned by the CC in the
certification process and should not be departed from save
in the most compelling circumstances.
3. South African Association of Personal Injury The CC held → There is no doubt the provides for
Lawyers v Heath 2001 such a separation of powers and that laws inconsistent
with the are invalid. Further, that the principle is an
implied or implicit provision and drawn from the structure
of other provisions.
4. Executive Council of the Western Cape The CC held → Any law or conduct not in accordance
Legislature v President of the Republic of with the , either for procedural or substantive reasons,
South Africa 1995. will therefore not have the force of law.
The CC held → The “manner & form” provisions of the
prevent Parliament form delegating to the executive
the power to amend provisions of the enabling Act of
Parliament. This implies when the executive is
empowered to amend or repeal Acts - the doctrine of
1
, separation of functions will be undermined.
Therefore the court held that the executive may not make
this type of law.
5. Soobramoney v Minister of Health (KZN) Judgment → CC refused to order the state to provide
1998. expensive dialysis treatment to keep patient alive.
The CC held → That difficult & agonizing judgments
have to be made as to how a limited budget is best
allocated to the max advantage of the max number of
patients, and this is not a judgment a court can make.
6. Pharmaceuritcal Manufacturers Association Legal question → On what basis is the Presidents conduct
of SA: In re Ex parte President of the of signing an Act into operation constitutionally
Republic of South Africa 2000. reviewable - where the power given to him was granted by
an Act of Parliament.
The CC held → The power was not administrative action
although derived form legislation. The conduct was an
exercise of public power which had to be carried out
consistently with the provisions of the .
Legal question → What constraints does the place on
the exercise of public power.
The CC held → It is a requirement of the rule of law that
the exercise of public power not be arbitrary. Decision
must be related to the purpose for which the power was
given.
The CC did not reach the rule of law principle until it
decided the conduct was not administrative (Note:
sequence of analysis).
7. Minister of Health v Treatment Action The courts approach to human rights issues →
Campaign 2002.
The CC will not hesitate to issue mandatory relief which
affects policy and has cost implications when reaching the
conclusion that the state has not performed its
constitutional obligations.
2
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller StuddyScene. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £2.23. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
