Landmark Cases on ExcellentWiki - Legal Encyclopedia

S v Makwanyane (Death Penalty Case)

Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

S v Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) is the first and one of the most important judgments of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Delivered on 6 June 1995, the case declared the death penalty unconstitutional, establishing the Court’s commitment to human dignity, equality, and the protection of fundamental rights. The judgment is foundational to South African constitutional law.

Facts

The accused, T Makwanyane and M Mchunu, were convicted of four counts of murder and one count of robbery. They were sentenced to death under section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which provided for the death penalty as a competent sentence for murder. The case came before the Constitutional Court for confirmation of the constitutional validity of the death penalty, as required by the Interim Constitution.

Government of the RSA v Grootboom (Housing Rights)

Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC) is a landmark judgment on socio-economic rights under the South African Constitution. The case established the reasonableness standard for reviewing the state’s implementation of socio-economic rights, particularly the right of access to adequate housing under section 26 of the Constitution.

Facts

Mrs Irene Grootboom and approximately 900 other adults and children were evicted from informal dwellings on private land in the Wallacedene area of the Western Cape. The land had been earmarked for low-cost housing, but the residents had moved onto the land before housing was developed. The eviction left them homeless, with inadequate shelter, sanitation, and water. They applied to the High Court for an order requiring the government to provide them with adequate housing.

Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (HIV Medication)

Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC) is a landmark judgment on the right of access to healthcare services under section 27 of the Constitution. The case arose from the South African government’s refusal to provide antiretroviral medication to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. The Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), a civil society organisation, challenged this policy.

Facts

The South African government had limited the provision of Nevirapine, an antiretroviral drug that significantly reduces mother-to-child transmission of HIV, to a small number of pilot sites. The government cited concerns about the safety and efficacy of the drug, as well as the capacity of the health system to administer it. The TAC challenged the policy as a violation of the right of access to healthcare services.

Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie (Same-Sex Marriage)

Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC) is a landmark judgment on the right to equality and the recognition of same-sex marriage in South Africa. The Constitutional Court held that the common law definition of marriage and the Marriage Act 25 of 1961 unconstitutionally excluded same-sex couples from marriage, violating their rights to equality and dignity.

Facts

Ms Marié Fourie and Ms Cecelia Bonthuys, a same-sex couple, sought to marry but were unable to do so under the Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They challenged the constitutionality of the common law definition of marriage and the Marriage Act in the High Court, which ruled in their favour. The government appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal and then to the Constitutional Court.

Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road v City of Johannesburg (Evictions)

Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street, Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg 2008 (3) SA 208 (CC) is a landmark judgment on the right to housing and the prevention of arbitrary evictions. The case established the principle of “meaningful engagement” as a constitutional requirement in eviction proceedings, requiring municipalities to engage with occupiers before seeking their eviction.

Facts

The City of Johannesburg sought to evict occupiers from two dilapidated buildings in the inner city, claiming the buildings were unsafe and unhealthy. The occupiers, many of whom were poor and had no alternative accommodation, resisted the eviction. The case raised the question of whether the City’s approach to eviction complied with the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE Act) and the Constitution.

Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker (Impeachment)

Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly 2016 (3) SA 580 (CC) is a landmark judgment on the powers of the Public Protector, the constitutional obligation of accountability, and the impeachment of the President. The case arose from the Public Protector’s report on security upgrades at President Jacob Zuma’s private residence at Nkandla, which found that the President had violated the Constitution.

Facts

The Public Protector, Thuli Madonsela, had issued a report finding that President Jacob Zuma had breached the Constitution by failing to prevent undue benefit from state-funded security upgrades at his Nkandla residence. The report recommended that the President repay a reasonable portion of the costs. The President failed to implement the report. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) applied to the Constitutional Court to compel the implementation of the report and to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Bhe v Magistrate Khayelitsha (Customary Law Succession)

Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

Bhe v Magistrate Khayelitsha 2005 (1) SA 580 (CC) is a landmark judgment on the relationship between customary law and the Constitution, particularly the right to gender equality. The case concerned the rule of male primogeniture in customary law of succession, which excluded women and extra-marital children from inheriting from deceased estates. The Constitutional Court held that this rule was unconstitutional.

Facts

Ms Nonkuleleko Bhe and her two minor daughters were the survivors of Mr Bhe, who died intestate. Under the customary law rule of male primogeniture, as codified in section 23 of the Black Administration Act 38 of 1927 and the relevant regulations, the estate passed to the deceased’s father, a male relative, excluding Ms Bhe and her daughters. Ms Bhe challenged the constitutionality of the rule and the legislation that codified it.

Khosa v Minister of Social Development (Social Grants)

Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

Khosa v Minister of Social Development 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC) is a landmark judgment on the right of permanent residents to access social grants. The case addressed the intersection of the right to social security (section 27(1)(c)), the right to equality (section 9), and the rights of children (section 28). The Constitutional Court held that excluding permanent residents from social grant schemes was unconstitutional.

Facts

The applicants were permanent residents of South Africa who were denied social grants under the Social Assistance Act 59 of 1992, which limited eligibility to South African citizens. The applicants included elderly permanent residents denied old-age pensions, and permanent residents with children denied child support grants. They challenged the citizenship requirement as unconstitutional.