IRM1501
MAY JUNE PORTFOLIO 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 27 May 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1 (2 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT
121/21) [2022] ZACC 27
Facts of the Case
The applicants, including the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), approached the Equality
Court after years of advocacy against the unequal allocation of police resources in
poor and predominantly Black communities, particularly in Khayelitsha, Cape Town.
Their activism began in response to violent crime and the perceived inadequacy of
police response. This led to the establishment of the Khayelitsha Commission of
Inquiry, which found systemic under-resourcing of police in poorer areas. The
applicants argued that the system used to allocate police personnel—called the
Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR)—discriminated unfairly on the
basis of race and poverty.1
Legal Question
The main legal question was whether the Equality Court‟s failure to determine a
remedy for its earlier finding of unfair discrimination amounted to a constructive
refusal of a remedy, thereby violating the applicants‟ constitutional right of access to
courts under section 34 of the Constitution.2 A secondary question was whether this
justified the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief in the
absence of a final order from the Equality Court.3
Ratio Decidendi
The Constitutional Court recognised that unreasonable delays by a court in
delivering a decision may constitute a violation of the right of access to courts.4 The
Court held that the Equality Court's delay in determining the remedy—despite
repeated efforts by the applicants—was unreasonable and thus constituted a
1
Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27, para 24.
2
SJC v Minister of Police, para 40.
3
SJC v Minister of Police, para 42.
4
SJC v Minister of Police, para 44–48.
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
MAY JUNE PORTFOLIO 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 27 May 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1 (2 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT
121/21) [2022] ZACC 27
Facts of the Case
The applicants, including the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), approached the Equality
Court after years of advocacy against the unequal allocation of police resources in
poor and predominantly Black communities, particularly in Khayelitsha, Cape Town.
Their activism began in response to violent crime and the perceived inadequacy of
police response. This led to the establishment of the Khayelitsha Commission of
Inquiry, which found systemic under-resourcing of police in poorer areas. The
applicants argued that the system used to allocate police personnel—called the
Theoretical Human Resource Requirement (THRR)—discriminated unfairly on the
basis of race and poverty.1
Legal Question
The main legal question was whether the Equality Court‟s failure to determine a
remedy for its earlier finding of unfair discrimination amounted to a constructive
refusal of a remedy, thereby violating the applicants‟ constitutional right of access to
courts under section 34 of the Constitution.2 A secondary question was whether this
justified the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief in the
absence of a final order from the Equality Court.3
Ratio Decidendi
The Constitutional Court recognised that unreasonable delays by a court in
delivering a decision may constitute a violation of the right of access to courts.4 The
Court held that the Equality Court's delay in determining the remedy—despite
repeated efforts by the applicants—was unreasonable and thus constituted a
1
Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27, para 24.
2
SJC v Minister of Police, para 40.
3
SJC v Minister of Police, para 42.
4
SJC v Minister of Police, para 44–48.
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
