PLB Lecture 2 – 29 Jul.
22
Judicial authority
Sources - S(1)(c) and S(2) of the Constitution
- S (165) calls for judges to be independent and impartial {note ss(2)}
- S (166) states that the courts are the CC, The SCA, The HCSA/HCoA, and the MC
- S (167) lies out the role of the Constitutional Court (headed by Chief Justice and 9 other
judges)
- S (168) lays out the role of the Supreme Court of Appeal (has a president not a justice,
has no geographical jurisdiction)
- S (169) lays out the role of the High Court (has geographically limited jurisdiction)
- S (170) Magistrates court does not have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of
legislature
Transformative constitutionalism
– look at S v Makwanyane
– it’s a form of activism
– judges use the law and interpret it and use it to transform a society
Week 2
02 August 2022
Lecture 3
Exclusive jurisdiction
Direct Access – It only applies to the Constitutional Court
Week 10
07 October 2022
Themes 8 & 9
Semester Test
Cases – Freedom of Expression [Laugh it off Case] (Study theme 8)
Socioeconomic rights - Grootboom case (Study theme 9)
Laugh if of case [Study theme 8]
Deals with section 16 of Const.
[SS 1 deals w forms that are protected; SS 2 deals with those
that are not protected]
Basically, freedom of expression
This case deals with intellectual property rights – Laugh if off makes a joke regarding something that
is trademarked by SAB
The CC agreed with Laugh if off and the SAB had to prove that they lost money and show a monetary
loss due to this ad/shirt
Offensive speech and still be protected
Grootboom Case [Study theme 9]
Deals with Socioeconomic rights
which are some of our basic
rights i.e education, water
etc
Links with the right to dignity
Deals with section 26 of the Const.
Goes hand-in-hand with section 28 because they were children present
Structurer of Sem Test
Section A (5 Marks) [MCQ]
Section B (10 Marks) [Short, Direct questions]
Section C ( 10 Marks) [Application type question – Problem solving]
Week 11
11 Oct. 22
State v Lawrence; State v Negal; State v Solbery – This is the full CC cases (three criminal case,
combine into one CC case)
They appealed bc their Const. right to freedom of
Look up Interpretation of the USA law + section 36 of the freedom of religion based on CC decision
1997
Must be able to answer short questions based on the Canadian interpretation.
Read Pillay Judgement
This study theme must be studied and looked at in relation to and with the limitation clause (find
the actual study theme)
Equality of Religion
Use cannot use one religion, to compare another religion. This goes against freedom of religion.
Important cases – Lawrence Case, Pillay Judgement and Prince Case
The high court can be used to sway it is simply persuasive, but it cannot be used to as the final say.
Can be used to strengthen your case. On CC can set precedent. HC only valid in their jurisdiction.
Taylor v Kurtstag is a High Court decision therefore can be used to support and strengthen your case,
but the Pillay Case is the CC case therefore it must be in your answer.
nxaks
