Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
A: Procedural Stage - 2: Duty bearers - Cases - Coggle Diagram
A: Procedural Stage - 2: Duty bearers - Cases
Richter v Minister of home affairs
Richter could not have a special vote while he was teaching in the UK - this restricts his right to vote
The Minister of Home Affairs could grant Mr Richter the right for a special vote through broad interpretation
This case dealt with the Electoral Act S33(1)(b): can apply for a special vote if you fall in a specific class of people "temporary absence from the Republic for purposes of a holiday, business trip, attendance of a tertiary institution or an educational visit or participation in an international sports event"
The court did not agree with the broad interpretation as it unduly strains S33(1)(b). It has identified certain categories of people, this is what the legislation has required. To include Richter who is permanently out of the country would strain the exceptions
Richter was on the voter's roll, but was working in the UK - said that the above provision was a violation of his right to vote, as it didn't make provision for him to vote
It was clear from the ordinary meaning that Richter did not fall into those categories
Khumalo v Holomisa
The case deals with Common Law rules
The argument was that S8(1) regulates the horizontal application since it applies to all law including the common law and it binds the judiciary
Khumalo says there is no case
The court did not accept the argument because it would make S8(2) and (3) redundant. These sections were specifically added to make horizontal application possible
Holomisa took action against Khumalo who is the editor of the Sunday World
S16 finds direct application in this case because freedom of the press and freedom of expression where the media is concerned is protected by the Constitution. Holomisa was a public figure, so the Sunday World has a duty to report on it
The main issue in this case was defamation (between 2 private parties)
The court accordingly held that the applicants had not shown that the common law of defamation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and therefore dismissed the appeal with costs
Khumalo said that Holomisa was a robber and a thief and was being investigated for such crimes by the police
Requirements to succeed in a claim for defamation: (1) unlawful and (2) intentional publication of defamatory statements
Khumalo argued that these requirements violated his right to freedom of expression (S16). He argued that S16 is directly applicable to the common law because of S8(1)