FUR2601 MCQ Memo Bundle
2021/ALL
1. In the substantive stage of Bill of Rights litigation, the onus is first on the
respondent, who must show that he/she infringed the applicant’s rights.
1) False, in the substantive stage, the onus is first on the applicant, who must
show that an infringement of a right has taken place.
2) True, in the substantive stage, the onus is first on the respondent, who must
show that he/she infringed the applicant’s rights.
3) False, in the substantive stage the onus is on the respondent to indicate that
the applicant’s rights can be limited.
4) False, in the substantive stage, the onus is on the applicant, to show that the
infringement is not justifiable in terms of section 36 of the Constitution.
Answer: 1) False, in the substantive stage, the onus is first on the applicant, who must
show that an infringement of a right has taken place.
2. Section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are specifically
excluded from the protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
1) True, section 8(4) of the Constitution excludes juristic persons from the
protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights because of the nature of these rights
and the nature of juristic persons.
2) False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are entitled
to the rights in the Bill of Rights dependant on the nature of the right and the
nature of the juristic person.
3) True, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that only natural persons can lay
claim to the rights in the Bill of Rights.
4) False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that all juristic persons are
entitled to all the rights in the Bill of Rights.
,Answer: 2) False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are
entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights dependant on the nature of the right and the
nature of the juristic person.
3. Section 39 of the Constitution, the interpretation clause, provides that any
court, tribunal or forum, when interpreting the Bill of Rights may consider
international law and must consider foreign law.
1) False, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum
when interpreting the Bill of Rights, must consider international law and may
consider foreign law.
2) True, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum
when interpreting the Bill of Rights, may consider international law and must
consider foreign law.
3) False, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum
should only consider national law when interpreting the rights in the Bill of
Rights.
4) True, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum,
when interpreting the Bill of Rights may consider international law and must
consider foreign law, however, only as far as it pertains to matters of state
security.
Answer: 1) False, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or
forum when interpreting the Bill of Rights, must consider international law and may
consider foreign law.
4. In Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found that
the term “appropriate relief” referred to a declaration of invalidity that would be
the only applicable relief in the event of a constitutional rights violation.
1) True, in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found
that the term “appropriate relief” referred to a declaration of invalidity that would
be the only applicable relief in the event of a constitutional rights violation.
2) False, in Ferreira v Levin the Constitutional Court found that the term
“appropriate relief” referred to a declaration of invalidity that would be the only
applicable relief in the event of a constitutional rights violation.
, 3) True, in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found
that the term appropriate relief referred to a declaration of invalidity as a
discretionary remedy in the event of a constitutional rights violation.
4) False, in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found
that it was left to the courts to decide what appropriate relief would be in any
particular circumstances.
Answer: 4) False, in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court
found that it was left to the courts to decide what appropriate relief would be in any
particular circumstances.
5. In Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg the Constitutional Court found that the
right to water did not require the state to provide every person with sufficient
water on demand.
1) True, the Constitutional Court found that that the city's free basic water policy
was a reasonable measure of achieving the progressive realisation of the right
to water.
2) False, the Constitutional Court found that every citizen has the right to unlimited
clean water.
3) True, the Constitutional Court found that the right to water can be restricted if
municipalities struggle to source clean water.
4) False, the Constitutional Court found that the right to water could reasonably
be restricted to 2 litres of water per person per day.
Answer: 1) True, the Constitutional Court found that that the city's free basic water
policy was a reasonable measure of achieving the progressive realisation of the right
to water.
2020/02
1. Section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are specifically
excluded from the protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
, 1. True, section 8(4) of the Constitution excludes juristic persons from the
protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights because of the nature of these rights
and the nature of juristic persons.
2. False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are entitled
to the rights in the Bill of Rights dependant on the nature of the right and the
nature of the juristic person.
3. True, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that only natural persons can lay
claim to the rights in the Bill of Rights.
4. False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that all juristic persons are
entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights.
Answer: 2) False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are
entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights dependant on the nature of the right and the
nature of the juristic person.
2. The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to hear any matter, if leave to appeal
is granted and the matter is of such importance that it ought to be considered
by the Constitutional Court.
1. False, in terms of section 167 of the Constitution the Constitutional Court can
only hear constitutional matters.
2. True, section 167 of the Constitution has been amended by the Constitution
Seventeenth Amendment Act of 2012 granting it jurisdiction to hear any matter.
3. False, in terms of section 167 of the Constitution the Constitutional Court can
only hear constitutional and criminal matters.
4. True, section 167 of the Constitution has been amended by the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act of 2000 granting it jurisdiction to hear any matter.
Answer: 2) True, section 167 of the Constitution has been amended by the
Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act of 2012 granting it jurisdiction to hear any
matter.
3. The purposive method of interpretation is in favour of rights and against their
restriction.
2021/ALL
1. In the substantive stage of Bill of Rights litigation, the onus is first on the
respondent, who must show that he/she infringed the applicant’s rights.
1) False, in the substantive stage, the onus is first on the applicant, who must
show that an infringement of a right has taken place.
2) True, in the substantive stage, the onus is first on the respondent, who must
show that he/she infringed the applicant’s rights.
3) False, in the substantive stage the onus is on the respondent to indicate that
the applicant’s rights can be limited.
4) False, in the substantive stage, the onus is on the applicant, to show that the
infringement is not justifiable in terms of section 36 of the Constitution.
Answer: 1) False, in the substantive stage, the onus is first on the applicant, who must
show that an infringement of a right has taken place.
2. Section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are specifically
excluded from the protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
1) True, section 8(4) of the Constitution excludes juristic persons from the
protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights because of the nature of these rights
and the nature of juristic persons.
2) False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are entitled
to the rights in the Bill of Rights dependant on the nature of the right and the
nature of the juristic person.
3) True, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that only natural persons can lay
claim to the rights in the Bill of Rights.
4) False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that all juristic persons are
entitled to all the rights in the Bill of Rights.
,Answer: 2) False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are
entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights dependant on the nature of the right and the
nature of the juristic person.
3. Section 39 of the Constitution, the interpretation clause, provides that any
court, tribunal or forum, when interpreting the Bill of Rights may consider
international law and must consider foreign law.
1) False, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum
when interpreting the Bill of Rights, must consider international law and may
consider foreign law.
2) True, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum
when interpreting the Bill of Rights, may consider international law and must
consider foreign law.
3) False, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum
should only consider national law when interpreting the rights in the Bill of
Rights.
4) True, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum,
when interpreting the Bill of Rights may consider international law and must
consider foreign law, however, only as far as it pertains to matters of state
security.
Answer: 1) False, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or
forum when interpreting the Bill of Rights, must consider international law and may
consider foreign law.
4. In Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found that
the term “appropriate relief” referred to a declaration of invalidity that would be
the only applicable relief in the event of a constitutional rights violation.
1) True, in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found
that the term “appropriate relief” referred to a declaration of invalidity that would
be the only applicable relief in the event of a constitutional rights violation.
2) False, in Ferreira v Levin the Constitutional Court found that the term
“appropriate relief” referred to a declaration of invalidity that would be the only
applicable relief in the event of a constitutional rights violation.
, 3) True, in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found
that the term appropriate relief referred to a declaration of invalidity as a
discretionary remedy in the event of a constitutional rights violation.
4) False, in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found
that it was left to the courts to decide what appropriate relief would be in any
particular circumstances.
Answer: 4) False, in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court
found that it was left to the courts to decide what appropriate relief would be in any
particular circumstances.
5. In Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg the Constitutional Court found that the
right to water did not require the state to provide every person with sufficient
water on demand.
1) True, the Constitutional Court found that that the city's free basic water policy
was a reasonable measure of achieving the progressive realisation of the right
to water.
2) False, the Constitutional Court found that every citizen has the right to unlimited
clean water.
3) True, the Constitutional Court found that the right to water can be restricted if
municipalities struggle to source clean water.
4) False, the Constitutional Court found that the right to water could reasonably
be restricted to 2 litres of water per person per day.
Answer: 1) True, the Constitutional Court found that that the city's free basic water
policy was a reasonable measure of achieving the progressive realisation of the right
to water.
2020/02
1. Section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are specifically
excluded from the protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
, 1. True, section 8(4) of the Constitution excludes juristic persons from the
protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights because of the nature of these rights
and the nature of juristic persons.
2. False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are entitled
to the rights in the Bill of Rights dependant on the nature of the right and the
nature of the juristic person.
3. True, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that only natural persons can lay
claim to the rights in the Bill of Rights.
4. False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that all juristic persons are
entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights.
Answer: 2) False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are
entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights dependant on the nature of the right and the
nature of the juristic person.
2. The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to hear any matter, if leave to appeal
is granted and the matter is of such importance that it ought to be considered
by the Constitutional Court.
1. False, in terms of section 167 of the Constitution the Constitutional Court can
only hear constitutional matters.
2. True, section 167 of the Constitution has been amended by the Constitution
Seventeenth Amendment Act of 2012 granting it jurisdiction to hear any matter.
3. False, in terms of section 167 of the Constitution the Constitutional Court can
only hear constitutional and criminal matters.
4. True, section 167 of the Constitution has been amended by the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act of 2000 granting it jurisdiction to hear any matter.
Answer: 2) True, section 167 of the Constitution has been amended by the
Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act of 2012 granting it jurisdiction to hear any
matter.
3. The purposive method of interpretation is in favour of rights and against their
restriction.
