- See ‘Constitutional Court Statistics for the 1995 Term’ (1996) 12 SAJHR 39; ‘Constitutional Court Statistics for the 1996 Term’ (1997) 13 SAJHR 208; ‘Constitutional Court Statistics for the 1997 Term’ (1998) 14 SAJHR 277; ‘Constitutional Court Statistics for the 1998 Term’ (1999) 15 SAJHR 256, read with (1999) 15 SAJHR 446; ‘Constitutional Court Statistics for the 1999 Term’ (2000) 16 SAJHR 364.
- The concurrence between Ackerman J and Madala J was lower at 75 per cent, but was excluded because they only sat together for four cases.
- For the purposes of these statistics, the main judgment delivered by the Court and the interim order made on 21 September 2000 (CCT 38/00) have been considered as one judgment.
- Pr will be dealt with under the 2000 statistics as a case concerned primarily with the issue of evidence. The 2001 case concerning freedom of religion will be included in the statistics for 2001.
- The judgment for Le was given by a unanimous court, with no indication from the written reasons as to which judges were present. All judges have thus been marked as concurring.
- For the purposes of these statistics, the main issue which the Court addresses is taken to be the constitutionality of s 18(4)(f) of the Child Care Act.
- The subject matter for Pr has been taken as the reasons given by the Court for ordering that further evidence be adduced.
- Note that the jurisdictional basis for S v Dzukuda was a referral for confirmation of an order of invalidity by a High Court, and the jurisdictional basis for S v Tshilo was an application for leave to appeal against a High Court decision. For the purposes of these statistics, only the former has been recorded.
South African Journal on Human Rights
Volume 17, 2001 - Issue 2