IRM1501
MAY/JUNE EXAM 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 27 MAY 2025
, IRM1501 May/June Exam 2025
Due Date: 27 May 2025
Question 1: Case Summary – Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of
Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27
Background
This case arose from deep concerns about the inequitable distribution of police
resources in the Western Cape. Civil society organisations, including the Social Justice
Coalition, challenged the South African Police Service (SAPS) for disproportionately
allocating fewer policing resources to predominantly Black and economically
disadvantaged communities, while more affluent and predominantly white areas
received better coverage and services. Although the Equality Court acknowledged that
such disparities constituted unfair discrimination, it failed to offer any remedial action.
Legal Issue
The key legal issue was whether the Equality Court’s decision not to grant a remedy
after finding discrimination amounted to a “constructive refusal” to provide relief. This
raised the question of whether the Constitutional Court could step in due to the lower
court's failure to fulfil its remedial duties.
Decision
The Constitutional Court ruled that the Equality Court’s failure to provide a remedy
effectively amounted to a refusal to exercise its powers. It emphasized that when a
court finds evidence of unfair discrimination under the Promotion of Equality and
Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), it is constitutionally obligated to
grant appropriate and effective relief. The Constitutional Court therefore referred the
matter back to the Equality Court to determine and implement suitable remedies.
MAY/JUNE EXAM 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 27 MAY 2025
, IRM1501 May/June Exam 2025
Due Date: 27 May 2025
Question 1: Case Summary – Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of
Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27
Background
This case arose from deep concerns about the inequitable distribution of police
resources in the Western Cape. Civil society organisations, including the Social Justice
Coalition, challenged the South African Police Service (SAPS) for disproportionately
allocating fewer policing resources to predominantly Black and economically
disadvantaged communities, while more affluent and predominantly white areas
received better coverage and services. Although the Equality Court acknowledged that
such disparities constituted unfair discrimination, it failed to offer any remedial action.
Legal Issue
The key legal issue was whether the Equality Court’s decision not to grant a remedy
after finding discrimination amounted to a “constructive refusal” to provide relief. This
raised the question of whether the Constitutional Court could step in due to the lower
court's failure to fulfil its remedial duties.
Decision
The Constitutional Court ruled that the Equality Court’s failure to provide a remedy
effectively amounted to a refusal to exercise its powers. It emphasized that when a
court finds evidence of unfair discrimination under the Promotion of Equality and
Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), it is constitutionally obligated to
grant appropriate and effective relief. The Constitutional Court therefore referred the
matter back to the Equality Court to determine and implement suitable remedies.
