South African Court
Think you're winning? Check the Leader Board
Recently Heard Cases
|Hearing Date & Case Summary||Make/Edit Predition||My Prediction||Crowd Prediction|
16 May 2019 - AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others CCT 294/18
Summary - The parents of two children who had been expelled from a private school after a number of unfortunate incidents, particularly in relation to the children’s sporting activities, brought an application for their children to remain at the school. The parents argue that section 8(2) of the Constitution places a positive duty on the school to provide their children with an education. The Supreme Court of Appeal, in a split decision, ruled that section 8(2) should not be applied to private schools. The parents, along with the Centre for Child Law and Equal Education (appearing as amicus curiae), have appealed against this decision.
|Make prediction||You must be logged in to view this content||7 - 2 Appeal will be upheld|
Recently Decided Cases
|Hearing Date & Case Summary||My Prediction||Crowd Prediction||Outcome||My Points|
27 Nov 2018 - Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank CCT 107/2018
Summary - The Public Protector has appealed against a ruling of the High Court (Pretoria) that found her to have been biased in her investigation into the repayment of loans made in the mid-1980’s by the Reserve Bank to Bankorp, a predecessor of the bank known today as ABSA, and ordering her to personally pay 15% of the costs of the litigation, including the costs of three counsel.
|You must be logged in to view this content||0 - 6 Appeal will be dismissed||2 - 8 Appeal dismissed||0 pts|
29 Nov 2018 - Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others CCT 320/2017
Summary - The Constitutional Court is required to rule on whether the common law defence of moderate and reasonable chastisement including physical punishment of minor children is constitutionally invalid.
|You must be logged in to view this content||1 - 5 Appeal will be dismissed||0 - 10 Appeal dismissed||0 pts|
14 Feb 2019 - President of the Republic of South Africa v Democratic Alliance and Others CCT 159/18
Summary - The Constitutional Court is required to rule on whether the provisions of Rule 53 of the High Court rules apply to executive actions taken by the President. The case arose when former President Jacob Zuma fired and replaced the Minister of Finance in 2017, a decision which was taken on review by the Democratic Alliance. The High Court (Pretoria) found that, on a literal interpretation, rule 53 did not apply to Presidential decisions, but the Court adopted a purposive approach in ruling that it does, essentially expanding the scope of rule 53 to Presidential actions.
|You must be logged in to view this content||2 - 6 Appeal will be dismissed||2 - 8 Appeal dismissed||0 pts|
19 Feb 2019 - General Alfred Moyo and Another v Minister of Police and Others CCT 174/18 and Nokulunga Primrose Sonti and Another v Minister of Police CCT 178/18
Summary - This case questions whether sections 1(1)(b) and 1(2) of the Intimidation Act infringe upon the right to freedom of speech. Moyo, the chairperson of a community-based organisation in the Makause area, and Sonti, a member of parliament, were both charged with contravening the Intimidation Act. Their cases were consolidated before the Constitutional Court which is required to consider the validity of the relevant sections of the Intimidation Act with reference to whether those sections make unreasonable inroads into the right to freedom of expression by barring individuals from speaking their minds for fear of placing someone in a subjective state of fear.
|You must be logged in to view this content||5 - 3 Appeal will be upheld||9 - 0 Appeal upheld||0 pts|
26 Feb 2019 - National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Another v PG Group (Pty) Limited and Others CCT 131/18
Summary - The Constitutional Court is required to rule on an appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal reviewing and setting aside the decision of the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA), to approve the maximum gas price and transmission tariff applications of the second applicant, Sasol Gas Limited (Sasol), on the basis that the methodology by which Sasol’s gas price application was approved was irrational and unreasonable.
|You must be logged in to view this content||4 - 4 Lower court decision||8 - 1 Appeal upheld||0 pts|
09 May 2019 - Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited v Merck Corporation and Others CCT 212/18
Summary - This case involves a challenge against the validity of a patent registered by Merck, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, relating to an injectable formulation used to treat parasitic infections. For a patent to be valid, its subject matter has to be inventive, non-obvious and useful. Merck filed a patent infringement action against Ascendis. Ascendis, in turn, challenged Merck’s patent on the basis that the formulation was not novel and was obvious. After losing at the Supreme Court of Appeal, Ascendis sought to defend Merck’s patent infringement action on a further basis, that the patent was not useful. Merck submitted that all challenges to the validity of its patent were res judicata (already decided), an argument that was upheld. Ascendis has turned to the Constitutional Court to rule that the rule of res judicata does not prevent it from bringing further applications challenging the validity of Merck’s patent on grounds that had not been considered in the prior litigation.
|You must be logged in to view this content||1 - 7 Appeal will be dismissed||5 - 5 Lower court decision||0 pts|