Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:14:46Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:14:46Z
dc.date.created 2012-01-19 en
dc.identifier.citation [2012] ZACC 13
dc.identifier.citation 2012 (8) BCLR 840 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation [2012] 10 BLLR 959 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation (2012) 33 ILJ 1593 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2013 (1) SA 83 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3663
dc.title South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Another v Garvas and Others (City of Cape Town Intervening; Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae) en
dc.title.alternative CCT112/11 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT112/11 en
dc.contributor.judge Mogoeng CJ
dc.contributor.judge Jafta J separate judgment
dc.date.judgment 13 June 2012
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3663/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28338%20Kb%29-19052.pdf?sequence=26&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis 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).
dc.concourt.casehistory 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).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account