The (in)significance of the common law? Constitutional interpretation and the Mansingh judgments
- Authors: Krüger, Rósaan
- Date: 2014
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/68900 , vital:29337 , https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC155168
- Description: Publisher version , The law reports abound with case law on the interpretation of the provisions in the Bill of Rights. Cases on the interpretation of constitutional provisions that fall outside of the Bill of Rights are, by contrast, few and far between. (A few prominent examples are S v Mhlungu 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC); President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC) ('SARFU'); Matatiele Municipality v President of the Republic of South Africa 2006 (5) SA 47 (CC); Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly 2006 (6) SA 416 (CC); Merafong Demarcation Forum v President of the Republic of South Africa 2008 (5) SA171 (CC); Chonco v President of the Republic of South Africa 2010 (6) BCLR 511 (CC); Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation 2010 (3) SA 293 (CC).) Mansingh's April 2011 application to the North Gauteng High Court was one of these unusual cases.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2014
- Authors: Krüger, Rósaan
- Date: 2014
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/68900 , vital:29337 , https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC155168
- Description: Publisher version , The law reports abound with case law on the interpretation of the provisions in the Bill of Rights. Cases on the interpretation of constitutional provisions that fall outside of the Bill of Rights are, by contrast, few and far between. (A few prominent examples are S v Mhlungu 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC); President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC) ('SARFU'); Matatiele Municipality v President of the Republic of South Africa 2006 (5) SA 47 (CC); Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly 2006 (6) SA 416 (CC); Merafong Demarcation Forum v President of the Republic of South Africa 2008 (5) SA171 (CC); Chonco v President of the Republic of South Africa 2010 (6) BCLR 511 (CC); Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation 2010 (3) SA 293 (CC).) Mansingh's April 2011 application to the North Gauteng High Court was one of these unusual cases.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2014
Equality and unfair discrimination: refining the Harksen test
- Authors: Krüger, Rósaan
- Date: 2011
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/68890 , vital:29336 , https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC53981
- Description: Publisher version , The 1997 formulation of the test in Harksen by Constitutional Court seemed to settle the constitutional standards in respect of equality and unfair discrimination. In this article this test is scrutinised closely with a view to clarify the different aspects of the right protected in s 9. Reliance is further placed on Canadian commentary which interrogates the dignity-centred analysis of the Canadian Supreme Court in relation to the Canadian Charter's prohibition of discrimination. The similar insistence on dignity as the interest protected by the right to equality opens up new possibilities in the South African context. Accordingly, specific 'wrongs' or 'indignities' of inequality are identified, which refines the Harksen test. The identification of the indignities, it is suggested, assists litigants and the court on a practical level when determining the fairness or otherwise of discrimination.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2011
- Authors: Krüger, Rósaan
- Date: 2011
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/68890 , vital:29336 , https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC53981
- Description: Publisher version , The 1997 formulation of the test in Harksen by Constitutional Court seemed to settle the constitutional standards in respect of equality and unfair discrimination. In this article this test is scrutinised closely with a view to clarify the different aspects of the right protected in s 9. Reliance is further placed on Canadian commentary which interrogates the dignity-centred analysis of the Canadian Supreme Court in relation to the Canadian Charter's prohibition of discrimination. The similar insistence on dignity as the interest protected by the right to equality opens up new possibilities in the South African context. Accordingly, specific 'wrongs' or 'indignities' of inequality are identified, which refines the Harksen test. The identification of the indignities, it is suggested, assists litigants and the court on a practical level when determining the fairness or otherwise of discrimination.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2011
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »