- 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, and ‘Constitutional Court Statistics for the 2000 Term’ (2001) 17 SAJHR 277.
- 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC); 2001 (5) BCLR 449 (CC); 2001 (1) SACR 686 (CC).
- These two cases were heard together and a single judgment was delivered.
- The court only dealt with one issue on the merits which concerned whether it was constitutionally correct for the legislature to confer on the Provincial Speaker the power firstly, to make regulations in terms of a provincial Act and secondly, to determine the date on which the Act may come into force.
- The appellant alleged that it was an organ of state within the national sphere of government. This argument was rejected by the Court and thus the case has been classified as pro- government.
- Given that the appellant's conviction was set aside, this case has been classified as being against government. However, it should be noted that the Court found in favour of government on the issue of the constitutionality of the statutory provision.
- ‘Mp’ is such a case and thus does not appear on this table.
- It should be noted that applications in terms of rule 21 of the Constitutional Court Rules, read with rule 17 of the SCA rules have replaced the presidential referral basis of jurisdiction, in terms of s79(4)(b) of the 1996 Constitution, which occupied this first column in last year's statistics.
- As above, applications in terms of rule 28 of the Constitutional Court Rules read with rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court has replaced dismissals for lack of jurisdiction which occupied this column in last year's statistics.
- The case of In re Constitutionality of the Mpumalanga Petitions Bill 2000 CCT 11/01; 2002 (1) SA 447 (CC); 2001 (11) BCLR 1126 (CC) reached the court on the basis ofs 121(2)(b) of the Final Constitution which empowers a Premier to refer a Bill to the Constitutional Court to determine its constitutionality.
- The jurisdiction basis for Minister of Defence v Potsane was a direct appeal from the HC, while for Legal Soldier (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Defence it was direct access in terms of s 167(6)(a) of the 1996 constitution. For the purpose of these statistics only the former has been recorded.
South African Journal on Human Rights
Volume 18, 2002 - Issue 3