Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:08:57Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:08:57Z
dc.date.created 2007-08-14 en
dc.identifier.citation [2008] ZACC 10
dc.identifier.citation 2008 (5) SA 171 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2008 (10) BCLR 968 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3386
dc.title Merafong Demarcation Forum and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others en
dc.title.alternative CCT41/07 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT41/07 en
dc.contributor.judge Van der Westhuizen J Majority judgment
dc.date.judgment 13 June 2008
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3386/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28652%20Kb%29-12595.pdf?sequence=37&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Challenge concerning the rationality of a decision by the Gauteng provincial legislature to vote in favor of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill in the National Council of Provinces and the fulfillment of the legislature?s duty to facilitate public participation in relation to the Bill. The Court held that the constitutional duty to facilitate public participation requires that the public be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make submissions. It does not require a legislature to re-engage with the public if it initially supports the view expressed by the majority of the public but ultimately departs from it. The Court confirmed that all public power must be exercised rationally, but held that the contentious political nature of a decision is irrelevant to the rationality enquiry. If a public body changes its mind, its final decision is not irrational where the change is based on legitimate considerations and a correct appreciation of its powers and obligations. The actions of the Gauteng provincial legislature were therefore not unconstitutional Majority: Van der Westhuizen J (Langa CJ, Mpati AJ, Ngcobo J, Skweyiya J, Yacoob J concurring) Separate Concurrences: Ngcobo J (Langa CJ, Mpati AJ, Ngcobo J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J concurring); Skweyiya J (Yacoob J concurring). Dissents: Moseneke DCJ (Madala J, Nkabinde J, Sachs J concurring); Madala J; Sachs J.
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for direct access in terms of section 167(4)(e) which concerns a constitutional challenge to a part of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act .


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account