Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:16:03Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:16:03Z
dc.date.created 2012-12-04 en
dc.identifier.citation [2013] ZACC 28
dc.identifier.citation 2013 (6) SA 249 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2013 (11) BCLR 1297 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3698
dc.title Mazibuko v Sisulu and Another en
dc.title.alternative CCT115/12 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT115/12 en
dc.contributor.judge Moseneke DCJ Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Jafta J minority judgment
dc.date.judgment 27 August 2013
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3698/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28378%20Kb%29-21307.pdf?sequence=21&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Application concerning when and how a member of the National Assembly may initiate a motion of no confidence under section 102(2) of the Constitution and Rule 98(1) of the Rules of the National Assembly. The majority dismissed the direct appeal and held that Rule 2(1) of the Rules of the National Assembly (Rules) does not empower the Speaker to schedule a motion of no confidence in the President if the Programme Committee (Committee) fails to arrive at a consensus on tabling the motion. In terms of Rules 187 to 190, this task rests with the Committee. Alternative application for direct access was granted. The Court declared Chapter 12 of the Rules invalid to the extent that it is inconsistent with section 102(2) of the Constitution, but suspended the declaration of invalidity for six months. The Court did not decide whether section 102(2) creates an obligation for the Assembly within the meaning of section 167(4)(e). Application by the Speaker to cross-appeal against the High Court cost order was allowed and upheld. Application by the Chief Whip to cross-appeal against the cost order was allowed, but dismissed. A minority judgment agreed that the Speaker did not have residual power to table a motion of no confidence in the Assembly, but would not have set the matter down for lack of prospects of success and because the Assembly was already amending the Rules. The minority would have dismissed the application with costs. Majority: Moseneke DCJ (Froneman J, Khampepe J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J and Van der Westhuizen J concurring). Minority: Jafta J (Mogoeng CJ, Mhlantla AJ and Zondo J concurring).
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal directly to the CC against a decision of the Western Cape High Court: Mazibuko, Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly v Sisulu MP Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (21990/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 189; 2013 (4) SA 243 (WCC) (22 November 2012).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account