CCT112/11

[2012] ZACC 13

2012 (8) BCLR 840 (CC)

[2012] 10 BLLR 959 (CC)

(2012) 33 ILJ 1593 (CC)

2013 (1) SA 83 (CC)

Mogoeng CJ

Jafta J separate judgment

13 June 2012

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3663

Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the SCA: SATAWU v Garvis and Others 2011 (6) SA 382 (SCA). The case was first heard in the Western Cape High Court: Garvis and Others v SATAWU (Minister for Safety and Security, Third Party) 2010 (6) SA 280 (WCC).

Application for leave to appeal judgment upholding section 11(2) of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993, which provides an organizer of a gathering with only a limited defence to the statutory liability imposed on the organiser by section 11(1) for riot damage resulting from that gathering. The section was challenged on the grounds that it’s defence was illusory and irrational and that it constitutes an unjustifiable limitation of the right to freedom of assembly in section 17 of the Constitution. The majority held that section 11(2) is not illusory or irrational, as it is capable of providing a real defence. It also held that while section 11(2) does limit the right to freedom of assembly, the limitation is reasonable and justifiable, given the importance of the purpose of the section, which is to protect vulnerable members of the public who suffer loss as a result of gatherings. The orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal were confirmed. In a concurring judgment, it was held that that the appeal should be dismissed, on the basis that the applicant failed to prove that the law limits the right to freedom of assembly, or that the defence that it creates is irrational. Judgment: Mogoeng CJ (Yacoob ADCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Khampepe J, Maya AJ, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J and van der Westhuizen J concurring). Separate concurrence: Jafta J (Zondo AJ concurring).