CASE NAME FACTS LEGAL ISSUE: SECTION LINK RULING
Rossouw V Sachs - Sachs detained under Whether a detainee Intention of the legislature - The purpose of s17 is to
s17 of Act 37 of 1963 under s17 of act 37 The appellate division did not simply read induce the detainee to
- Act allowed for of 1963 was entitled the words of s17 provide information and
detention without as of right to They explicitly rejected a strict literal ‘reply satisfactorily to all
warrant for comforts like reading interpretation that might favour individual questions’
interrogation related and writing liberty and a strained interpretation - A detainee under s17
to offences against materials favouring the executive, opting instead for cannot be equated to
state security an approach that sought to discern what an unconvicted prisoner
- Cape provincial parliament truly aimed to achieve with this - Court distinguished
division granted specific, stringent legislation between necessities
Sach’s request for and comforts
access to ‘comforts’ - The acts strict
and equated his rights provisions underscore
to those of an the unique and
unconvicted prisoner stringent nature of this
awaiting trial detention
(Rossouw appealed
this decision)
Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Cool Ideas 1186 CC Can an unregistered Text in Context The Constitutional Court
(“Cool Ideas”) was a home builder (in Words in a statute must be given their ordinary dismissed the appeal and held
Hubbard
grammatical meaning, unless doing so would lead to an
property developer terms of section 10 absurd result.
that Cool Ideas could not
that contracted with of the Housing However, he added three interrelated qualifications enforce the award, because
Hubbard (“the Consumers (riders) to this principle: doing so would contravene the
homeowner”) to build Protection Measures 1. Purposive Interpretation: Act.
Statutory provisions must always be
a home. Act) enforce a “A court cannot enforce a
interpreted with regard to their purpose —
The construction was building contract or that is, the reason and objective behind the contract that the law declares to
completed by a an arbitration law. be prohibited or unenforceable.”
registered home award arising from 2. Contextualisation: The court held that even though
builder, but Cool it? The provision must be read in context, another registered builder had
considering the statute as a whole and the
Ideas itself was not circumstances in which it operates. carried out the actual
registered as required 3. Constitutional Consistency: construction, Cool Ideas —
, under section 10(1) All statutes must be interpreted consistently being the contracting party —
(b) of the Housing with the Constitution. was still bound by the statutory
Where possible, courts should choose an
Consumers interpretation that upholds constitutional requirement to be registered.
Protection Measures validity, rather than one that renders a
Act 95 of 1998 (“the provision unconstitutional.
Act”). Majiedt AJ noted that this constitutional consistency
requirement is closely connected to the purposive
A dispute arose, and approach, since both aim to give effect to the
an arbitrator underlying values and objectives of the legislation.
awarded Cool Ideas
payment for the work
done.
Hubbard opposed
enforcement of the
award, arguing that
the contract was
unenforceable
because Cool Ideas
had contravened the
Act by being
unregistered.
S v Makwanyane - The accused were Is the death penalty 1. Grammatical (Textual) Interpretation The Constitutional Court
The Court began by examining the ordinary unanimously held that the death
convicted of murder constitutional under meaning of the words in sections 9, 10, and 11(2).
in the Witwatersrand the 1993 The right to life was expressed without penalty was unconstitutional.
Local Division and Constitution, qualification — this textual clarity led the Court to Section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal
interpret it as an absolute protection of life. Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and all
sentenced to death considering the 2. Systematic Interpretation
corresponding provisions
under section 277(1) rights to life (s 9), The Court interpreted the Constitution as a
coherent whole rather than isolating provisions. authorizing capital punishment
(a) of the Criminal dignity (s 10), and Chaskalson P emphasized that the Bill of Rights were declared invalid.
Procedure Act 51 of the right not to be must be read in light of the entire constitutional The Court found that:
1977. subjected to cruel, structure
The death penalty
3. Teleological (Purposive) Interpretation
- They appealed against inhuman, or The Court adopted a purposive or value-based violates the right to life (s
their death sentences, degrading treatment approach to give effect to the spirit, purport, and 9);
objects of the Bill of Rights (s 35(1)). It destroys human dignity
and the Appellate or punishment (s The purpose of including rights like life and dignity
Division postponed 11(2))? (s 10); and
was to establish a society based on respect for
It constitutes cruel,
Rossouw V Sachs - Sachs detained under Whether a detainee Intention of the legislature - The purpose of s17 is to
s17 of Act 37 of 1963 under s17 of act 37 The appellate division did not simply read induce the detainee to
- Act allowed for of 1963 was entitled the words of s17 provide information and
detention without as of right to They explicitly rejected a strict literal ‘reply satisfactorily to all
warrant for comforts like reading interpretation that might favour individual questions’
interrogation related and writing liberty and a strained interpretation - A detainee under s17
to offences against materials favouring the executive, opting instead for cannot be equated to
state security an approach that sought to discern what an unconvicted prisoner
- Cape provincial parliament truly aimed to achieve with this - Court distinguished
division granted specific, stringent legislation between necessities
Sach’s request for and comforts
access to ‘comforts’ - The acts strict
and equated his rights provisions underscore
to those of an the unique and
unconvicted prisoner stringent nature of this
awaiting trial detention
(Rossouw appealed
this decision)
Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Cool Ideas 1186 CC Can an unregistered Text in Context The Constitutional Court
(“Cool Ideas”) was a home builder (in Words in a statute must be given their ordinary dismissed the appeal and held
Hubbard
grammatical meaning, unless doing so would lead to an
property developer terms of section 10 absurd result.
that Cool Ideas could not
that contracted with of the Housing However, he added three interrelated qualifications enforce the award, because
Hubbard (“the Consumers (riders) to this principle: doing so would contravene the
homeowner”) to build Protection Measures 1. Purposive Interpretation: Act.
Statutory provisions must always be
a home. Act) enforce a “A court cannot enforce a
interpreted with regard to their purpose —
The construction was building contract or that is, the reason and objective behind the contract that the law declares to
completed by a an arbitration law. be prohibited or unenforceable.”
registered home award arising from 2. Contextualisation: The court held that even though
builder, but Cool it? The provision must be read in context, another registered builder had
considering the statute as a whole and the
Ideas itself was not circumstances in which it operates. carried out the actual
registered as required 3. Constitutional Consistency: construction, Cool Ideas —
, under section 10(1) All statutes must be interpreted consistently being the contracting party —
(b) of the Housing with the Constitution. was still bound by the statutory
Where possible, courts should choose an
Consumers interpretation that upholds constitutional requirement to be registered.
Protection Measures validity, rather than one that renders a
Act 95 of 1998 (“the provision unconstitutional.
Act”). Majiedt AJ noted that this constitutional consistency
requirement is closely connected to the purposive
A dispute arose, and approach, since both aim to give effect to the
an arbitrator underlying values and objectives of the legislation.
awarded Cool Ideas
payment for the work
done.
Hubbard opposed
enforcement of the
award, arguing that
the contract was
unenforceable
because Cool Ideas
had contravened the
Act by being
unregistered.
S v Makwanyane - The accused were Is the death penalty 1. Grammatical (Textual) Interpretation The Constitutional Court
The Court began by examining the ordinary unanimously held that the death
convicted of murder constitutional under meaning of the words in sections 9, 10, and 11(2).
in the Witwatersrand the 1993 The right to life was expressed without penalty was unconstitutional.
Local Division and Constitution, qualification — this textual clarity led the Court to Section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal
interpret it as an absolute protection of life. Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and all
sentenced to death considering the 2. Systematic Interpretation
corresponding provisions
under section 277(1) rights to life (s 9), The Court interpreted the Constitution as a
coherent whole rather than isolating provisions. authorizing capital punishment
(a) of the Criminal dignity (s 10), and Chaskalson P emphasized that the Bill of Rights were declared invalid.
Procedure Act 51 of the right not to be must be read in light of the entire constitutional The Court found that:
1977. subjected to cruel, structure
The death penalty
3. Teleological (Purposive) Interpretation
- They appealed against inhuman, or The Court adopted a purposive or value-based violates the right to life (s
their death sentences, degrading treatment approach to give effect to the spirit, purport, and 9);
objects of the Bill of Rights (s 35(1)). It destroys human dignity
and the Appellate or punishment (s The purpose of including rights like life and dignity
Division postponed 11(2))? (s 10); and
was to establish a society based on respect for
It constitutes cruel,
