IRM1501
MAY/JUNE EXAM 2025
UNIQUE NO.
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 stemmed from the unequal distribution of policing resources in the Western
Cape, where predominantly Black and economically disadvantaged communities
received significantly fewer police services than more affluent, predominantly white
areas. Although the Equality Court acknowledged that such a disparity amounted to
discrimination by the South African Police Service (SAPS), it stopped short of providing
any corrective relief.
Legal Issue:
The central question was whether the Equality Court’s omission to grant any remedial
action—despite acknowledging discrimination—could be viewed as a “constructive
refusal” to offer justice, thereby prompting intervention by the Constitutional Court.
Judgment:
The Constitutional Court ruled that the Equality Court’s failure to provide a remedy
indeed constituted a constructive refusal to act. The Court reiterated that once a court
identifies unfair discrimination, it is constitutionally bound to offer meaningful redress. As
such, the matter was returned to the Equality Court to determine appropriate remedial
measures.
Significance:
This decision highlights the judiciary’s duty not only to recognize rights violations but
also to actively provide remedies that rectify those injustices. It affirms the principle that
courts must uphold constitutional values by ensuring effective relief in cases of systemic
discrimination.
MAY/JUNE EXAM 2025
UNIQUE NO.
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 stemmed from the unequal distribution of policing resources in the Western
Cape, where predominantly Black and economically disadvantaged communities
received significantly fewer police services than more affluent, predominantly white
areas. Although the Equality Court acknowledged that such a disparity amounted to
discrimination by the South African Police Service (SAPS), it stopped short of providing
any corrective relief.
Legal Issue:
The central question was whether the Equality Court’s omission to grant any remedial
action—despite acknowledging discrimination—could be viewed as a “constructive
refusal” to offer justice, thereby prompting intervention by the Constitutional Court.
Judgment:
The Constitutional Court ruled that the Equality Court’s failure to provide a remedy
indeed constituted a constructive refusal to act. The Court reiterated that once a court
identifies unfair discrimination, it is constitutionally bound to offer meaningful redress. As
such, the matter was returned to the Equality Court to determine appropriate remedial
measures.
Significance:
This decision highlights the judiciary’s duty not only to recognize rights violations but
also to actively provide remedies that rectify those injustices. It affirms the principle that
courts must uphold constitutional values by ensuring effective relief in cases of systemic
discrimination.
