- 1981 (1) SA 938 (A).
- [1983] AC I (HL).
- At 11B, 15D.
- At 13A; my emphasis.
- At 14G.
- See also Chester v Bateson [1920] 1 KB 829 and R v Home Secretary, Ex parte Anderson [1984] 2 WLR 725.
- 1956 (4) SA 18 (T). Cases decided before Slabbert that might best have been decided under the rule requiring specific authority tend to be expressed as applications of other rules; for instance, the rule against unreasonableness, especially in the multifarious senses that Kruse v Johnson [1898] 2 QB 91 gives the word (at 99–100), and the rule against delegation (or sub-delegation, as it is sometimes called).
- Act 38 of 1927.
- 1956 (4) SA 18 (T) at 22B
- At 21 H; my translation.
- At 21–2, 22C.
- 1959 (3) SA 634 (A).
- At 637E.
- But cf S v Mafako 1964 (4) SA 708 (T).
- 1982 (2) SA 515 (SE).
- At 518H.
- Due allowance is necessary, because the proposition cited in the text is an application of that rule only if we understand ‘[s]ubordinate’ to mean ‘delegated’ and ‘expressly or impliedly’ to mean ‘specifically’. But it calls for little generosity to make such an allowance, for the proposition makes little sense unless we understand these constituent parts of it in this way.
- See 1982 Annual Survey of South Africa Law 52–3.
- Cf Mandela v Minister of Prisons 1983 (1) SA 938 (A) at 957D.
- 1940 1 PD 56
- At 60, 65 See, further, Mull v Department of Irrigation 1950 (4) SA 158 (T) and cf Lensing v Kimherler Munistpaluen 1976 (3) SA 615 (NC).
- Much of the argument here owes a general debt to the ideas of Professor Dworkin.
- R v Hockly 1917 EDI 117.
- Trollip and Galgut AJJA concurred. On account of illness. Muller and Joubert JJA ‘were not able to take part in the settling’ of the judgment, but “the conclusions arrived at are in accord with the views' that they had expressed (1983 (1) SA 938 (A) at 964D).
- 1983 (1) SA 938 (A) at 959H.
- At 957D, 959H, 963B.
- At 959–60.
- [1898] 2 QB 91 at 99–100.
- 1983 (1) SA 938 (A) at 960.
- Sec note 24 above.
South African Journal on Human Rights
Volume 1, 1985 - Issue 2