[TYPE THE COMPANY NAME]
IRM1501 OCTOBER
NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE 7
October 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]
,Exam (elaborations)
IRM1501 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 -
DUE 7 October 2025
Course
Introduction to Research Methodology for Law and C (IRM1501)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
Introduction to Research Methods
IRM1501 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester
2 2025 - DUE 7 October 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions
and explanations. Ensure your success with us.
5 receive . If we cannot open the document, you will receive zero. 21. Do not
take pictures of your hand-written or printed pages with your smart phone
and then use an app to convert these photos into a pdf document. The
quality of these photos may interfere with the marking of the document. If
the marker cannot read the information contained on the page, it cannot be
marked. All queries regarding problems with online submissions of portfolios
MUST BE DIRECTED TO: ; or . Unfortunately, your lecturers CANNOT assist
you with technical or administrative challenges. PORTFPOLIO EXAM
QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1 Discuss the relevant aspects of the case of Social Justice
Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022]
ZACC 27; 2022 (10) BCLR 1267 (CC) (19 July 2022), which is available under
‘Additional resources’. (15 marks)
Answer — Social Justice Coalition & Others
v Minister of Police & Others (CCT 121/21)
[2022] ZACC 27 (19 July 2022)
Below I discuss the relevant aspects of the Constitutional Court decision — facts, procedural
history, central legal issues, the Court’s decision and reasoning, and the judgment’s practical and
,doctrinal significance (plus a brief note on critiques). Aim is to cover the points you would need
for a legal essay or exam answer.
1. Facts and procedural background (short)
• The litigation began as an Equality Court matter in the Western Cape where the Social Justice
Coalition (SJC), Equal Education and the Nyanga Community Policing Forum challenged the
system and outcome of the South African Police Service’s allocation of human resources in the
Western Cape. The Equality Court (Western Cape High Court sitting as an Equality Court) heard
the matter in 2017–2018 and on 14 December 2018 declared that the allocation of police
resources in the Western Cape and the formula used by SAPS produced systemic under-
resourcing of poor, Black communities and therefore unlawfully and unfairly discriminated
against those communities on the grounds of race and poverty. This decision recognised
poverty as an (unlisted) ground of discrimination. SAFLII+1
• After that declarator the applicants sought further remedial and supervisory relief (including
directions and timelines for remedying the discriminatory allocation). Those remedial
proceedings remained pending and protracted. The applicants then approached the Constitutional
Court by way of direct access/leave to appeal seeking (in effect) a “constructive-refusal”
declarator and relief on the basis that the delays in the lower-court processes amounted to a
constructive refusal of remedy and therefore justified intervention by the Constitutional Court.
Law Library
2. Central legal issues before the Constitutional Court
1. Substantive equality: confirmation and scope of the Equality Court’s finding that the
SAPS resource-allocation system and the Western Cape distribution produced unfair
discrimination on the basis of race and poverty (and the legal status of poverty as a
ground of discrimination).
2. Access to courts and judicial delay: whether the prolonged delay in finalising remedial
relief in the Equality Court could amount to a constructive refusal of a remedy and thus
justify direct access to the Constitutional Court or an appeal on the basis of a violation of
s 34 (the right of access to courts).
3. Remedial and jurisdictional limits: the Constitutional Court’s inherent (s 173) and
remedial (s 172) powers and the appropriate limits on issuing declaratory relief in
circumstances where remedial proceedings in lower courts are still alive. Law Library
, 3. The Constitutional Court’s decision and reasoning
(succinct)
• Outcome: The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal / direct access. It did not overturn
the Equality Court’s substantive findings about unfair discrimination; instead the Court focused
on the procedural question of whether it should intervene by treating delay as a constructive
refusal and thereby exercising appellate or direct-access jurisdiction to grant the remedial orders
the applicants sought. Law Library
• Reasoning (key points):
The Court recognised the gravity and constitutional importance of the Equality Court’s
substantive findings — including that the THRR (the human-resource allocation system)
produced systemic under-resourcing of poor, Black communities, and that poverty had
been accepted as an unlisted ground of discrimination in that context. But despite that, the
Court emphasised institutional and procedural limits on its jurisdiction to grant the
applicants’ requested relief at that stage. Law Library
The Court reiterated that the Constitutional Court’s supervisory and remedial powers are
not unlimited: there is a strong interest in allowing lower courts the opportunity to
determine and craft appropriate remedies, particularly where remedial proceedings
are active. The Court was reluctant to short-circuit that process by substituting its own
remedial programme unless there were compelling reasons to do so. Law Library
On the point of constructive refusal and delay, the Court held that not every protracted
delay by a lower court will amount to constructive refusal; applicants must show special
compelling circumstances to justify bypassing the ordinary appellate/remedial routes. The
Constitutional Court was not satisfied that such circumstances existed in this case to
warrant direct intervention. Law Library
4. Legal and practical significance
• Poverty as a ground of discrimination: The Equality Court’s original finding (which the
Constitutional Court acknowledged) is important: for the first time poverty was treated as a
discrete ground in the equality context, with implications for how state resource allocation
policies are reviewed under equality law. This is a doctrinally significant development in South
African equality jurisprudence. SciELO+1
• Limits on appellate intervention; procedural posture matters: The Constitutional Court’s
refusal underlines the Court’s reluctance to exercise direct access or to make remedial orders
when a lower court is still seized of remedy proceedings, even where the underlying substantive
wrong is grave. The decision therefore highlights the procedural safeguards and separation-
of-function concerns that constrain constitutional courts from acting as immediate supervisors
of every instance of delayed lower-court remedy. Law Library
IRM1501 OCTOBER
NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE 7
October 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]
,Exam (elaborations)
IRM1501 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 -
DUE 7 October 2025
Course
Introduction to Research Methodology for Law and C (IRM1501)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
Introduction to Research Methods
IRM1501 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester
2 2025 - DUE 7 October 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions
and explanations. Ensure your success with us.
5 receive . If we cannot open the document, you will receive zero. 21. Do not
take pictures of your hand-written or printed pages with your smart phone
and then use an app to convert these photos into a pdf document. The
quality of these photos may interfere with the marking of the document. If
the marker cannot read the information contained on the page, it cannot be
marked. All queries regarding problems with online submissions of portfolios
MUST BE DIRECTED TO: ; or . Unfortunately, your lecturers CANNOT assist
you with technical or administrative challenges. PORTFPOLIO EXAM
QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1 Discuss the relevant aspects of the case of Social Justice
Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022]
ZACC 27; 2022 (10) BCLR 1267 (CC) (19 July 2022), which is available under
‘Additional resources’. (15 marks)
Answer — Social Justice Coalition & Others
v Minister of Police & Others (CCT 121/21)
[2022] ZACC 27 (19 July 2022)
Below I discuss the relevant aspects of the Constitutional Court decision — facts, procedural
history, central legal issues, the Court’s decision and reasoning, and the judgment’s practical and
,doctrinal significance (plus a brief note on critiques). Aim is to cover the points you would need
for a legal essay or exam answer.
1. Facts and procedural background (short)
• The litigation began as an Equality Court matter in the Western Cape where the Social Justice
Coalition (SJC), Equal Education and the Nyanga Community Policing Forum challenged the
system and outcome of the South African Police Service’s allocation of human resources in the
Western Cape. The Equality Court (Western Cape High Court sitting as an Equality Court) heard
the matter in 2017–2018 and on 14 December 2018 declared that the allocation of police
resources in the Western Cape and the formula used by SAPS produced systemic under-
resourcing of poor, Black communities and therefore unlawfully and unfairly discriminated
against those communities on the grounds of race and poverty. This decision recognised
poverty as an (unlisted) ground of discrimination. SAFLII+1
• After that declarator the applicants sought further remedial and supervisory relief (including
directions and timelines for remedying the discriminatory allocation). Those remedial
proceedings remained pending and protracted. The applicants then approached the Constitutional
Court by way of direct access/leave to appeal seeking (in effect) a “constructive-refusal”
declarator and relief on the basis that the delays in the lower-court processes amounted to a
constructive refusal of remedy and therefore justified intervention by the Constitutional Court.
Law Library
2. Central legal issues before the Constitutional Court
1. Substantive equality: confirmation and scope of the Equality Court’s finding that the
SAPS resource-allocation system and the Western Cape distribution produced unfair
discrimination on the basis of race and poverty (and the legal status of poverty as a
ground of discrimination).
2. Access to courts and judicial delay: whether the prolonged delay in finalising remedial
relief in the Equality Court could amount to a constructive refusal of a remedy and thus
justify direct access to the Constitutional Court or an appeal on the basis of a violation of
s 34 (the right of access to courts).
3. Remedial and jurisdictional limits: the Constitutional Court’s inherent (s 173) and
remedial (s 172) powers and the appropriate limits on issuing declaratory relief in
circumstances where remedial proceedings in lower courts are still alive. Law Library
, 3. The Constitutional Court’s decision and reasoning
(succinct)
• Outcome: The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal / direct access. It did not overturn
the Equality Court’s substantive findings about unfair discrimination; instead the Court focused
on the procedural question of whether it should intervene by treating delay as a constructive
refusal and thereby exercising appellate or direct-access jurisdiction to grant the remedial orders
the applicants sought. Law Library
• Reasoning (key points):
The Court recognised the gravity and constitutional importance of the Equality Court’s
substantive findings — including that the THRR (the human-resource allocation system)
produced systemic under-resourcing of poor, Black communities, and that poverty had
been accepted as an unlisted ground of discrimination in that context. But despite that, the
Court emphasised institutional and procedural limits on its jurisdiction to grant the
applicants’ requested relief at that stage. Law Library
The Court reiterated that the Constitutional Court’s supervisory and remedial powers are
not unlimited: there is a strong interest in allowing lower courts the opportunity to
determine and craft appropriate remedies, particularly where remedial proceedings
are active. The Court was reluctant to short-circuit that process by substituting its own
remedial programme unless there were compelling reasons to do so. Law Library
On the point of constructive refusal and delay, the Court held that not every protracted
delay by a lower court will amount to constructive refusal; applicants must show special
compelling circumstances to justify bypassing the ordinary appellate/remedial routes. The
Constitutional Court was not satisfied that such circumstances existed in this case to
warrant direct intervention. Law Library
4. Legal and practical significance
• Poverty as a ground of discrimination: The Equality Court’s original finding (which the
Constitutional Court acknowledged) is important: for the first time poverty was treated as a
discrete ground in the equality context, with implications for how state resource allocation
policies are reviewed under equality law. This is a doctrinally significant development in South
African equality jurisprudence. SciELO+1
• Limits on appellate intervention; procedural posture matters: The Constitutional Court’s
refusal underlines the Court’s reluctance to exercise direct access or to make remedial orders
when a lower court is still seized of remedy proceedings, even where the underlying substantive
wrong is grave. The decision therefore highlights the procedural safeguards and separation-
of-function concerns that constrain constitutional courts from acting as immediate supervisors
of every instance of delayed lower-court remedy. Law Library
