Home / Archive / Court Cases

• 

  State v Makwanyane and another 1995 (Death penalty)

  The first major case to be ruled upon by the Constitutional Court. The abolition of the death penalty was a major step towards unilateral human rights in South Africa. Despite public opinion being in favour of the death penalty the Constitutional Courts ruling ensured that minorities who could not adequately protect there rights through democratic processes were affored the promise and protection of the new Constitution.

  More »
• 

  NCGLE v Minister of Justice 1998 (Sodomy)

  In 1998 The Constitutional Court declared the Sexual Offences Act; that prohibits sexual conduct between men, unconstitutional. The judgement overturned the common law offence of sodomy, which made sex between men a criminal offence. The Constitutional ruling to decriminalise sodomy was a huge step for South Africa as a democracy, ruling in a favour of the right to privacy, dignity and equality for more vunerable minority groups.

  More »
• 

  Hoffmann v South African Airways

  In Hoffman v South African Airways (2000), the Constitutional Court was asked to decide if SAA had violated Hoffman’s constitutional right to equality, dignity and fair labour practices. Hoffman applied for a job with SAA as a cabin attendant. He was asked to go for an HIV test, and was refused the job because he was HIV positive. The Court decided: SAA had discriminated against Hoffman, the discrimination was unfair, the denial of employment to the appellant impaired his dignity and constituted unfair discrimination, and being HIV negative was not an ‘inherent requirement’ of the job of being a cabin attendant.

  More »
• 

  Grootboom v Government 2000 (Housing)

  More »
• 

  PMA v Government of the RSA

  In 1997 the Government passed an amendment to the Medicines and Related Substances Act with the intention of rendering essential medicines more affordable to those utilising the public health sector. This was done in accordance with the introduction of the Constitution, which in section 27 states that all people must have access to healthcare, and that the State must take action to make sure this right is realised. In early 1998 the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PMA), along with 40 international drug companies, sought an interdict from the Pretoria High Court to prevent the government from enforcing this amendment.

  More »
• 

  Eastern Cape Department of Welfare v Ngxuza, Meltafa and others 2001 (social grants)

  Nozozile and Nobulelo Meltafa made legal history by launching a class action against the Eastern Cape welfare department on behalf of thousands of other disabled people who had had their disability grants cancelled without due course.

  More »
• 

  Treatment Action Campaign v Department of Health

  In July 2001 the TAC sent a letter to the Minister of Health and all provincial MEC’s demanding valid reasons why the Government would not provide Nevirapine, a cost-effective drug used to reduce the likelihood of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, to patients in the public health sector. Government failed to provide evidence supporting the contrary. TAC, consequently demanded that a national program be established aimed at enabling all medical practitioners to decide at their discretion whether to provide Nevirapine to pregnant women receiving care within the public health sector. When government refused, TAC had no option but to take them to court.

  More »
• 

  Treatment Action Campaign v Department of Health - Appeal

  The Constitutional Court handed down its final judgment in the mother-to-child HIV prevention case on 05 July 2002. Its decision was unanimous. The judgment was a defense of the needs of poor and working women and their children. The Court noted that: “There is a difference in the position of those who can afford to pay for services and those who cannot. State policy must take account of these differences.”

  More »
• 

  TAC v Department of Health - Access to information

  In November 2003, the Cabinet approved the National Operational Plan on Comprehensive Care and Treatment for HIV (Operational Plan). The Operational Plan however contained clauses which referred to a document known as “Annexure A” which was believed to contain the core- and week-by-week implementation timetable was being kept out of the public domain. Based on the constitutional right to information, the TAC approached the Department of Health demanding the release of this information crucial to the success of the Plan – a demand ignored by the Minister. TAC consequently approached the courts to settle the matter.

  More »
• 

  EN & others v Government of the RSA -ARV access

  Situated in Kwazulu Natal, one of the provinces most severely affected by HIV/AIDS, Westville Prison had steadfastly prevented TAC or other NGOs from conducting treatment workshops, treatment literacy programs, or any form of HIV awareness training. On 28 October 2005 the ALP sent a formal letter to Westville Prison authorities questioning what steps were being taken to ensure inmates had access to ART, and where inmates were able to receive such treatment. The ALP gave Westville Prison authorities just over a week to respond failing which they would assume no measures were being taken to provide ART, forcing them to instigate legal action.

  More »
• 

  TAC & Others v MEC of Health and Others

  In June 2007 hundreds of thousands of public sector workers across South Africa embarked on a sustained strike action to protest low wages, after an exhaustive process of negotiations between trade unions and the State. During these protests 600 health workers were dismissed, leaving the provision of basic public services severely hampered. On 15 June the TAC and five patients who received care at Khayelitsha lodged an urgent application in the Cape High Court to reinstate forty-one of the dismissed workers, in order to allow healthcare facilities to resume day-to-day operations.

  More »
• 

  TAC v Matthias Rath, the Minister of Health & the MCC

  The Cape High Court hands down a landmark judgment in a court action initiated by the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and the South African Medical Association (SAMA) against Rath and the Government of South Africa. The judgment effectively interdicts Rath from conducting unauthorised clinical trials and from plying his drugs as a suitable treatment for HIV in South Africa. The judgement also essentially orders the Department of Health and the Medicines Control Council to enforce the scientific governance of medicine.

  More »