About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Constitutional Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Constitutional Court
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZACC 14
|
|
Minister of Safety and Security v South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association (CCT177/17) [2018] ZACC 14; 2018 (2) SACR 164 (CC); 2018 (10) BCLR 1268 (CC) (7 June 2018)
Links to summary
Heads of arguments
CONSTITUTIONAL
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CCT 177/17
In the matter between
MINISTER
OF SAFETY AND
SECURITY
Applicant
and
SOUTH
AFRICAN HUNTERS AND GAME
CONSERVATION
ASSOCIATION
Respondent
and
FIDELITY
SECURITY SERVICES (PTY)
LIMITED
First Amicus
GUN
FREE SOUTH AFRICA
(NPO)
Second Amicus
Neutral citation:
Minister of Safety and Security v South African Hunters and Game
Conservation Association
[2018] ZACC 14
Coram:
Zondo
DCJ, Cachalia AJ, Dlodlo AJ, Froneman J, Goliath AJ, Jafta J,
Petse AJ and Theron J.
Judgments:
Froneman J (unanimous)
Heard
on:
7 February 2018
Decided
on:
7 June 2018
Summary:
Gun control — licence to possesses firearm —
termination of fiream licence — renewal of firearm licence
section
24 and 28 — firearms control act 60 of 2000 —
vagueness and rationality — equality — deprivation of
property
ORDER
In
the application for confirmation of the order of the High Court of
South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria:
1.
Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Limited and Gun Free South
Africa
(NPO) are admitted as amici curiae.
2.
The order in the High Court is set aside and replaced with the
following:
“
The
application is dismissed.”
JUDGMENT
FRONEMAN
J (Zondo DCJ, Cachalia AJ, Dlodlo AJ, Goliath AJ, Jafta J, Petse AJ
and Theron J concurring):
Introduction
[1]
Gun
ownership is not a fundamental right under our Bill of Rights. It
is a privilege regulated by law, under the Firearms
Control Act
[1]
(Act). The purpose of the Act is to:
“
(a)
enhance the constitutional rights to life and bodily integrity;
(b)
prevent the proliferation of illegally possessed firearms and, by
providing for the removal
of those firearms from society and by
improving control over legally possessed firearms, to prevent crime
involving the use of
firearms;
(c)
enable the state to remove illegally possessed firearms from society,
to control the
supply, possession, safe storage, transfer and use of
firearms and to detect and punish the negligent or criminal use of
firearms;
(d)
establish a comprehensive and effective system of firearm control and
management; and
(e)
ensure the efficient monitoring and enforcement of legislation
pertaining to the control
of firearms.”
[2]
[2]
These purposes are sought to be attained by mainly four
fundamentals:
(a)
No person
may possess a firearm without a valid licence;
[3]
(b)
No licence
may be issued to a person without a relevant competency
certificate;
[4]
(c)
A licence
is valid only for a limited period;
[5]
(d)
Possession
of a firearm without a licence is a criminal offence and subject to
minimum penalties.
[6]
[3]
Section 24 of the Act deals with the renewal of firearm
licences and section 28 with their termination. They read:
“
Renewal
of firearm licences
(1)
The holder of a licence issued in terms of this Chapter who wishes to
renew the licence
must at least 90 days before the date of expiry of
the licence apply to the Registrar for its renewal.
(2)
The application must be—
(a)
accompanied by such information as may be prescribed; and
(b)
delivered to the Designated Firearms Officer responsible for the area
in which the applicant
ordinarily resides or in which the applicant's
business is, as the case may be.
(3)
No application for the renewal of a licence may be granted unless the
applicant shows that
he or she has continued to comply with the
requirements for the licence in terms of this Act.
(4)
If an application for the renewal of a licence has been lodged within
the period provided
for in subsection (1), the licence remains valid
until the application is decided.
.
. .
Termination
of firearm licence
(1)
A licence issued in terms of this Chapter terminates—
(a)
upon the expiry of the relevant period contemplated in section 27,
unless renewed in terms
of section 24;
(b)
if surrendered by the holder of the licence to the Registrar;
(c)
if the holder of the licence becomes or is declared unfit to possess
a firearm in
terms of section 102 or 103; or
(d)
if it is cancelled in terms of this Act.
(2)
The Registrar may, by notice in writing, cancel a licence issued in
terms of this Chapter
if the holder of the licence—
(a)
no longer qualifies to hold the licence; or
(b)
has contravened or failed to comply with any provision of this Act or
any condition specified
in the licence.
(3)
A notice contemplated in subsection (2) may only be issued if the
Registrar has—
(a)
given the holder of the licence 30 days' notice in writing to submit
written representations
as to why the licence should not be
cancelled; and
(b)
duly considered any representations received and all the facts
pertaining to the matter.
(4)
(a)
If a notice contemplated in subsection (2) is issued, the former
holder of the licence must
dispose of the firearm in question through
a dealer or in such manner as the Registrar may determine.
(b)
The disposal must take place within 60 days after receipt of the
notice.
(5)
If the firearm is not disposed of within 60 days, it must be
forfeited to the State and
the former holder of the licence must
surrender it immediately at such place and in such manner as the
Registrar may determine.
(6)
Any period contemplated in this section may be extended by the
Registrar on good cause shown.”
Court
proceedings
[4]
The
respondent, South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association
(SA Hunters) brought an application to have sections
24 and 28
declared constitutionally invalid in the High Court of South Africa,
Gauteng Division, Pretoria (High Court).
[7]
The original application before the High Court also sought
other forms of relief, but these were abandoned in the High Court.
[5]
The
High Court found the two provisions to be constitutionally invalid on
three grounds: (1) irrationality and vagueness; (2) breaching
the
right of equality; and (3) violating the protection of property
rights in section 25 of the Constitution. With respect
to
irrationality and vagueness it found that there was no “rational
nexus between the legislative scheme and the pursuit
of a legitimate
government purpose that could explain the discrepancies in
procedure”, and that the “mere fact that
no proper
procedure is set out to bring oneself back under a scheme of
legality, nor provide for a procedure to surrender a firearm
for
value or otherwise, points to irrationality and vagueness”.
[8]
With regard to breaching the right of equality it held that the
provisions of the Act violated the equality provisions in
the Bill of
Rights on the basis that the legislative scheme provided for
differential treatment between gun owners protected under
the interim
order and those who were not.
[9]
Lastly, in respect of the violation of section 25, the High Court
reasoned that the absence of a proper procedure for
surrendering the
firearm after the effluxion of the licence period amounted to an
arbitrary deprivation of property contrary to
the principle set out
in
FNB
,
[10]
and the absence of a regime for surrendering the firearm for value
amounted to a violation of the right to property in terms of
section
25.
[11]
It gave
Parliament 18 months within which to cure the defect and declared all
firearm licences which are or were to be renewed
in terms of
section 24 to be deemed valid until this Court’s final
determination of the constitutional validity of the
sections.
[6]
Before
the High Court order has any force it must be confirmed by this
Court.
[12]
The applicant, the
Minister of Safety and Security (Minister), has, in any event, lodged
an appeal against the order.
[13]
SA Hunters seeks confirmation of the order.
[7]
Two
other parties, Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd (Fidelity
Security) and Gun Free South Africa NPO (Gun Free SA), applied
to be
admitted as amici curiae (friends of the court).
[14]
Fidelity Security argued that only section 24(1) of the Act was
unconstitutional. In the alternative, it asked the
Court to
declare, first, that section 28(6) allowed the period of
validity of a licence to be extended and, second, that applicants
for
firearm licences should be allowed to submit late applications and
should be issued with temporary licences in accordance with
section
21 when they do so. Gun Free SA argued that sections 24
and 28 are not unconstitutional and drew the Court’s
attention
to the international law obligations of South Africa in relation to
firearms control. Both Fidelity Security and
Gun Free SA’s
arguments were of value to this Court and it is in the interests of
justice to admit them as amici curiae.
[8]
At issue then is the constitutional validity of sections 24
and 28 of the Act.
Background
[9]
The
Act breaks from the past. Under the previous Act
[15]
a licence to possess a firearm lasted for life (old order licence).
The Act changed this. Each person wishing to own
or
possess a firearm must first possess a competency certificate.
[16]
Competency certificates expire after periods of two, five or
ten years, depending on the nature of the firearm licence.
[17]
[10]
Schedule 1 of the Act contains provisions for the transition
from the previous Act to the present one. Item 1 of the
schedule
allowed previous licence holders a five year licence,
which had to be renewed, on application, at least 90 days prior to
expiry
of the five-year period. Old order licences remained
valid pending the outcome of renewal applications, including internal
reviews to an appeal board or High Court reviews.
[11]
Many
old order licence holders complied with the transitional provisions.
Others failed to. In earlier litigation brought
in 2009,
SA Hunters challenged the validity of the transitional regime and
obtained an urgent interim order deeming all firearm
licences in
sub-item 1 of item 1 of the schedule valid until determination of the
main application. SA Hunters appears not
to have pursued a
final order in the 2009 application.
[18]
[12]
Much of SA Hunters’ founding papers in the High Court
focused on alleged problems and complaints about the administration
of the Act. It initially sought various orders in relation to
the implementation of the Act which, in the end, it abandoned.
What
is before us is only the challenge to the statutory provisions
themselves, not the complaint about tardy implementation.
While
the apparent problems in the administration of the Act are cause for
legitimate concern, it is not relevant to a proper
interpretation of
the impugned provisions of the Act.
Vagueness
and rationality
[13]
The
requirements that legislation must be rational and not vague are
incidents that flow from the rule of law, in particular the
principle
of legality.
[19]
They
are minimum thresholds to pass before a legislative provision can
qualify as law.
[14]
Rationality
review is concerned with the evaluation of a relationship between
means and ends, namely whether the means selected
are rationally
related to the objectives sought to be achieved. The aim of the
evaluation is not to determine whether some
means will achieve the
purpose better, only whether the selected one could also rationally
achieve the same end.
[20]
[15]
Nor does the doctrine of vagueness require absolute clarity or
lucidity. In
Affordable Medicines Trust
Ngcobo J stated:
“
The
doctrine of vagueness is one of the principles of common law that was
developed by courts to regulate the exercise of public
power. As
pointed out previously, the exercise of public power is now regulated
by the Constitution which is the supreme
law. The doctrine of
vagueness is founded on the rule of law, which, as pointed out
earlier, is a foundational value of our
constitutional democracy. It
requires that laws must be written in a clear and accessible manner.
What is required
is reasonable certainty and not perfect
lucidity. The doctrine of vagueness does not require absolute
certainty of laws.
The law must indicate with reasonable
certainty to those who are bound by it what is required of them so
that they may regulate
their conduct accordingly. The doctrine
of vagueness must recognise the role of government to further
legitimate social and
economic objectives and should not be used
unduly to impede or prevent the furtherance of such objectives.”
[21]
[16]
SA
Hunters relied on vagueness of the legislation as a pointer to
arbitrariness and irrationality. The provisions are not,
however, vague themselves. They cannot be clearer. It is
an offence to possess a firearm without a licence obtained
in terms
of the Act.
[22]
Once one
has obtained a licence one needs to renew it at least 90 days before
the date of expiry.
[23]
If
that is done timeously the licence remains valid until the
application is decided.
[24]
If that is not done the licence terminates
[25]
and possession of the firearm constitutes an offence and is subject
to criminal penalties.
[26]
[17]
On their own terms there is also no apparent irrationality in
the legislative provisions themselves. The constitutional
validity
of the licensing system and the criminalisation of unlawful
possession upon termination of the licence by lapse of time are not
challenged. Once that is accepted there is no facial
irrationality in the means chosen (the licensing process) to attain
the ends (lawful possession), or its converse, non-compliance with
the licensing process leading to unlawful possession and
criminalisation.
[18]
So the irrationality or vagueness flowing from time-lapse
termination must lie elsewhere. SA Hunters sought to locate it
in
the consequences, namely that gun-holders would not, after
termination of the licence upon effluxion of time: (i) have any
lawful
means to dispose of the firearm; (ii) know what the
consequences of the lapsed licence will be, and (iii) know what to do
in those
circumstances. This, it was argued, is inimical to the
certainty that the rule of law and principle of legality requires.
[19]
There is a short answer to this: the gun-holder must get rid
of the firearm. But, goes the argument, he cannot do so
lawfully
because he immediately becomes guilty of a crime when the
licence has lapsed. But this consequence, even if correct
(which
it is not), is not vague or uncertain, or irrational in terms
of the end sought. The gun-owner knows that he must either
apply in time for renewal or dispose of the firearm before expiry.
If he does not, he will be guilty of an offence. He
knows
what is expected of him before expiry of the licence and is provided
with legislative means to fulfil that expectation. He
also
knows what will happen to him if he does not do so. The rule of
law requirements of clarity and certainty are clearly
met.
[20]
But
SA Hunters is also wrong in its contention that there are no lawful
means of disposal after termination of the licence. I
can see
no legal obstacle to handing the firearm over to the police after
termination. The fear that the gun-owner may be
liable for
prosecution if he takes steps to hand over the unlicensed firearm to
the police is over-stated. If that is the
intention, it is
difficult to imagine how it can be said that the gun-owner can be
guilty of unlawful possession of the firearm.
Our Constitution
will not countenance that strictest form of strict liability.
[27]
[21]
But then the complaint is that the police will or must destroy
the firearm – it is submitted that the police have no legal
competence to hold it in safe custody until the gun-owner applies for
and obtains another licence. Again, what has this to
do with
irrationality? It may infringe on other rights that the
gun-owner may have, like section 25 protection of property,
but that
is part of a different enquiry.
Equality
[22]
The pleaded case of SA Hunters was that there was unequal
treatment between those gun-owners protected by the old order who do
not
have to apply for re-licensing and others not covered by the
order. That differentiation does not arise from the Act. We
are dealing with alleged inequality in the provisions of the Act
itself, not its application by officialdom.
[23]
In
Harksen
,
[28]
this court adopted a multi-stage process for determining if law or
conduct violates the right to equality. Establishing whether
the impugned law or conduct differentiates between people or
categories of people is the first stage of that process. If
differentiation is established, it must next be determined whether
the differentiation bears a rational connection to a legitimate
government purpose. If law or conduct does not bear a rational
connection to a legitimate government purpose, then it violates
section 9(1) of the Constitution. If section 9(1) has not been
violated, the next stage of the
Harksen
test is to determine whether the differentiation amounts to
discrimination. If the differentiation is on a ground listed
in
section 9(3), it is necessarily discriminatory.
[29]
[24]
There is clearly differentiation between the categories of
termination of licences in section 28(1)(a)-(d), but the
differentiation
is not arbitrary. It has a rational basis.
[25]
In the case of termination by effluxion of time under section
28(1)(a), the licence-holder would have known, at least from the time
the licence was granted, that it would expire at the end of a
specified period. It was clear from the outset that the licence
was temporary. Furthermore, no administrative action is
required to terminate the licence under section 28(1)(a). It
terminates by operation of law. The procedure is fair without
provision for the licence holder to make representations regarding
the cancellation.
[26]
Termination
according to section 28(1)(c) or (d) is quite different. Notably,
there is a third party enquiry into determining
the factual
prerequisite for termination of the licence. The Registrar must
determine that the licence holder either (i)
no longer qualifies to
hold the licence, or (ii) has failed to comply with a provision of
the Act or a condition of the licence.
[30]
Moreover, the Registrar has to perform an administrative act to
terminate the licence. The licence holder’s right
to a
fair procedure is triggered by the fact that the Registrar is making
a decision that might adversely affect the licence holder.
For
that reason, the licence holder is granted a right to make
representations.
[27]
It was also suggested that because the consequences of
termination for the other section 28 categories was different, this
amounted
to unfair discrimination under section 9(3). Following
upon the rational differentiation between the different categories
it
is difficult to see the unfairness in the possible consequences too.
[28]
The equality challenge must also fail.
Deprivation
of property
[29]
There
is merit in the Minister’s argument that if there is any
deprivation of property it occurs in the sections that criminalise
unlawful possession
[31]
and
those laying down the time limits for the licences.
[32]
There is no constitutional challenge directed at these
provisions. The impugned sections 24 and 28 merely give effect
to those provisions and do not independently amount to any new
deprivation of property.
[30]
But
even if they do, the deprivation is not arbitrary. There is a
compensation regime contained in the Act for surrendered
firearms.
[33]
Its
constitutionality has not been challenged either.
[31]
And
if, somehow, one gets to the kind of weighing-up required in terms of
this Court’s section 25 protection of property
jurisprudence,
[34]
then
relinquishing some incidents of ownership in potentially
life-threatening firearms is not too great a price to pay for one
of
the purposes of the Act, enhancing the constitutional rights to life
and bodily integrity.
[32]
None of the arguments advanced to the effect that the sections
are constitutionally invalid are well-founded. It follows that
confirmation application must be dismissed and the Minister’s
appeal upheld. The order below gives effect to both.
Miscellan
e
ous
matters
[33]
Gun
Free South Africa sought to introduce further statistical evidence,
but the other parties disputed some of this evidence and
accordingly
its admission is not sanctioned under this Court’s rules.
[35]
[34]
The
matter concerns a constitutional issue of importance and there will
be no costs order against the respondent.
[36]
Order
[35]
The following order is made:
1.
Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Limited and Gun Free South
Africa
(NPO) are admitted as amici curiae.
2.
The order in the High Court is set aside and replaced with the
following:
“
The
application is dismissed.”
For the Applicant:
G
Budlender SC, H Varney and D M Nyathi instructed by the State
Attorney, Pretoria.
For the Respondent:
F Snyckers SC and G
Diamond instructed by Couzyn, Hertzog & Horak.
For the First
Amicus Curiae:
M Snyman instructed
by M J Hood & Associates.
For the Second
Amicus Curiae:
M Chaskalson SC and
J L Griffiths instructed by Fasken (Incorporated as Bell Dewar
Inc).
[1]
60 of 2000.
[2]
Section 2.
[3]
Section 3 states:
“
(1)
No person may possess a firearm unless he or she holds for that
firearm—
(a)
a licence, permit or authorisation issued in terms of this Act;
or
(b)
a licence, permit, authorisation or registration certificate
contemplated
in item 1, 2, 3,4, 4A or 5 of Schedule 1.
(2)
No person may possess a muzzle loading firearm unless he or she has
been issued
with the relevant competency certificate.”
[4]
Section 6(2) states:
“
Subject
to section 7, no licence may be issued to a person who is not in
possession of the relevant competency certificate.”
section
7 states:
“
(1)
When a juristic person wishes to apply for a licence, permit or
authorisation in terms
of this Act, it must nominate a natural
person to apply on its behalf.
(2)
The person so nominated must be identified on the licence, permit or
authorisation
as the responsible person.
(3)
A responsible person who holds any licence, permit or authorisation
issued in terms
of this Act pursuant to an application contemplated
in subsection (1) on behalf of the juristic person must for purposes
of this
Act be regarded as the holder of the licence in question.”
[5]
Section 10(2) states:
“
A
competency certificate contemplated in subsection (1) (a) (i), (ii),
(iii) and (iv), remains valid for the same period of validity
as the
period determined in this Act in respect of the licence to which the
competency certificate relates, unless the competency
certificate is
terminated or renewed in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.”
and
section 27 states:
“
A
licence or permit mentioned in Column 2 of the Table below remains
valid for the period mentioned in Column 3 of that Table.
TABLE
— PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF LICENCE OR PERMIT
Section
number
Type
of licence or permit
Period
of validity
13
Licence
to possess firearm for self-defence
Five
years
14
Licence
to possess restricted firearm for self-defence
Two
years
15
Licence
to possess firearm for occasional hunting and sports-shooting
10
years
16
Licence
to possess firearm for dedicated hunting and dedicated
sports-shooting
10
years
16A
Licence
to possess a firearm for professional hunting
10
years
17
Licence
to possess firearm in private collection
10
years
18
Permit
to possess ammunition in private collection
10
years
19
Licence
to possess firearm, and permit to possess ammunition, in public
collection
10
years
20
Licence
to possess firearm for business purposes: Business as game
rancher and in hunting
10
years
20
Licence
to possess firearm for business purposes: Business other than as
game rancher and in hunting
Five
years
[6]
Section 120 states:
“
(1)
A person is guilty of an offence if he or she contravenes or fails
to comply with any—
(a)
provision of this Act.”
section
121 states:
“
Any
person convicted of a contravention of or a failure to comply with
any section mentioned in Column I of Schedule 4, may be
sentenced to
a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding the period
mentioned in Column 2 of that Schedule opposite
the number of that
section.”
[7]
South
African Hunters and Game Conservation Association v Minister of
Safety and Security of the Republic of South Africa
2017
(2) SACR 288
(GP) (High Court judgment).
[8]
Id at para 40.
[9]
Id at para 43.
[10]
First
National Bank of SA Limited t/a Wesbank v Commissioner for the South
African Revenue Services; First National Bank of SA
Limited t/a
Wesbank v Minister of Finance
[2002] ZACC 5
;
2002 (4) SA 768
(CC);
2002 (7) BCLR 702
(CC) (
FNB
)
at para 100.
[11]
High Court judgment above n 7 at paras 44-54.
[12]
Section 167(5) of the Constitution.
[13]
In terms of Rule 16(2) of the Court’s rules.
[14]
A third, Gun Owners of South Africa, sought admission as an amicus
at a late stage, but was refused.
[15]
Arms and Ammunition Act 75 of 1969 (previous Act).
[16]
Section 6(2) read with Section 9(2) of the Act provides that an
applicant must demonstrate that they are of a certain age; are
not
dependent on certain substances; have not been convicted of certain
offences; and have passed tests on knowledge of the law
and
proficiency in the safe use of firearms.
[17]
See sections 10(2) and 27 of the Act.
[18]
See order of the High Court per Poswa J in
South
African Hunters and Game Conservation Association v Minister of
Safety and Security
(33656/2009).
[19]
See
Affordable
Medicines Trust v Minister of Health
[2005]
ZACC 3
;
2006 (3) SA 247
(CC);
2005 (6) BCLR 529
(CC) paras
74-5;
United
Democratic Movement v President of the Republic of South Africa
(African Christian Democratic Party Intervening; Institute
for
Democracy in South Africa as Amici Curiae)
[2002] ZACC 21
(CC);
2003 (1) SA 495
(CC);
2002 (11) BCLR 1179
(CC)
para 55; and
New
National Party v Government of the Republic of South Africa
[1999]
ZACC 5
(CC);
1999 (3) SA 191
(CC);
1999 (5) BCLR 489
(CC) para 19.
[20]
See cases referred to in
Democratic
Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa
[2012]
ZACC 24
; 2013(1) SA 248 (CC);
2012 (12) BCLR 1297
(CC) at paras
29-45.
[21]
Affordable
Medicines Trust
above
n 19 at para 108.
[22]
See section 3(1) of the Act.
[23]
Id at section 24(1).
[24]
Id at section 24(4).
[25]
Id at section 28(1)(a).
[26]
See above n 6.
[27]
Compare
S
v Singo
[2002]
ZACC 10
;
2002 (4) SA 858
(CC);
2002 (8) BCLR 793
(CC) at paras 25-6
which states that “statutes that impose a legal burden, which
has now become known as a reverse onus”,
represents “a
radical departure from our law, which requires the state to
establish the guilt of the accused and not the
accused to establish
his or her innocence”. Furthermore, the state will have
a difficult time proving beyond reasonable
doubt culpability to
commit an offence of possessing an unlawful firearm en route to
disposing of the firearm in the lawful manner
prescribed in terms of
the Act, see for example
S
v Zuma
[1995]
ZACC 1
;
1995 (2) SA 642
(CC);
1995 (4) BCLR 401
(SA) (CC) at para
41.
[28]
Harksen
v Lane NO
[1997]
ZACC 12; 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC); 1997 (11) BCLR 1489 (CC).
[29]
AB v
Minister of Social Development
[2016] ZACC 43
;
2017 (3) SA 570
(CC);
2017 (3) BCLR 267
(CC) at
paras 102-3 and 105.
[30]
See section 28(2) of the Act.
[31]
Section 3 of the Act.
[32]
Sections 10(2) and 27 of the Act.
[33]
Sections 134-7. The constitutional validity of regulation
94(1) is not before us. The contents of a regulation cannot
be
used in the interpretation of empowering legislation:
R
v Singh
1944 AD 366
at 370.
[34]
City of
Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Link Africa (Pty) Ltd
[2015] ZACC 29
;
2015 (6) SA 440
(CC);
2015 (11) BCLR 1265
(CC);
Shoprite
Checkers (Pty) Limited v Member of the Executive Council for
Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism,
Eastern
Cape
[2015] ZACC 23
;
2015 (6) SA 125
(CC);
2015 (9) BCLR 1052
(CC);
Reflect-All
1025 CC v MEC for Public Transport, Roads and Works, Gauteng
Provincial Government
[2009]
ZACC 24
;
2009 (6) SA 391
(CC);
2010 (1) BCLR 61
(CC);
Mkontwana
v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality
[2004] ZACC 9
;
2005 (1) SA 530
(CC);
2005 (2) BCLR 150
(CC); and
FNB
above
n 10.
[35]
Rule 31 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
[36]
Biowatch
Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources
[2009]
ZACC 14
;
2009 (6) SA 232
(CC);
2009 (10) BCLR 1014
(CC) at paras
23-4.