Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:10:53Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:10:53Z
dc.date.created 2008-09-22 en
dc.identifier.citation [2011] ZACC 27
dc.identifier.citation 2011 (11) BCLR 1158 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3564
dc.title Moutse Demarcation Forum and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others en
dc.title.alternative CCT40/08 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT40/08 en
dc.date.hearing 10 March 2011
dc.contributor.judge Jafta J
dc.date.judgment 23 August 2011
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3564/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28264%20Kb%29-17473.pdf?sequence=54&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Application for direct access in terms of sections 167(4)(d) and 167(6)(a) of the Constitution challenging a part of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act of 2005 and the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act 23 of 2005. The applicants contended that these enactments are inconsistent with the Constitution and consequently invalid insofar as they authorise the relocation of Moutse 1 and Moutse 3 from the province of Mpumalanga to the province of Limpopo. The challenge to the impugned laws was based on two grounds: first, that these laws are irrational and perpetuate apartheid-era boundaries insofar as they alter the provincial boundaries of Mpumalanga and relocate Moutse 1 and Moutse 3 to the province of Limpopo and second, that the Mpumalanga Legislature failed to adequately facilitate public involvement in the process of enacting the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill as required by section 118(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court held that the connection between the impugned provisions and the legitimate government purpose was not irrational. The fact that the impugned boundary may coincide with a boundary drawn by the apartheid government does not, in and of itself, render the Twelfth Amendment inconsistent with the Constitution. The evidence which was placed before the Court was not sufficient to show that the public involvement was inadequate. The Court accordingly dismissed the application. Judgment: Jafta J (unanimous).
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for direct access brought in terms of section 167(4)(d) and 167(6)(a) of the Constitution. Case involves a constitutional challenge to a part of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act of 2005 and to the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act 23 of 2005.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account