CCT77/08

[2009] ZACC 11

2010 (2) SA 181 (CC)

2009 (10) BCLR 978 (CC)

Mokgoro J Majority judgment

O'Regan J dissenting judgment

4 November 2008

7 May 2009

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3565

The case was first heard in the North Gauteng High Court: Bertie Van Zyl v Minister for Safety and Security and Others; Montina Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Minister for Safety and Security and Others 2008 (6) SA 562 (T). The order of invalidity made by the High Court was referred to the CC for confirmation. The applicants simultaneously appealed against the High Court?s interpretation of section 20(1)(a) of Private Security Industry Regulation Act 56 of 2001

The matter concerned the constitutional validity of provisions of the Private Security Industry Act of 2001, regulating the private security industry in South Africa. The applicants were farmers who had hired ?in-house? security guards. Case concerned whether they were required to register as ?security service providers? under section 21(1)(a) of the Act and be bound by the the Code of Conduct which ensured the payment of minimum wages and compliance with labour standards. The majority of the Court held that the provision was not overbroad; that the in-house security guards fell within this definition and were thus required to register in terms of the Act. Furthermore the Court held that the requirement of compliance with the Code of Conduct was not unconstitutional since it was an important purpose of the Act. In a dissenting judgment, O'Regan J held that section 21(a) was impermissibly vague and therefore unconstitutional and invalid.