constitutional-court-review

Administrative Law
1. Good Reviews, Bad Actors: The Constitutional Court’s Procedural Drama
Leo Boonzaier
1
2. The Puzzle of Pronouncing on the Validity of Administrative Action on Review
Geo Quinot & P J H Maree
27
3. The Ebb and Flow of the Application of the Principle of Subsidiarity – Critical Reflections on
Motau and My Vote Counts
Melanie Murcott & Werner van der Westhuizen
43
4. Administrative Action, the Principle of Legality and Deference – The Case of Minister of Defence and
Military Veterans v Motau
Andrew Konstant
68
5. The Test for ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ Where an Order of Substitution is Sought: An Analysis of Trencon Against the Backdrop of the Separation of Powers
Lauren Kohn
91
6. Clarifying the Exceptional Circumstances Test in Trencon: An Opportunity Missed
Raisa Cachalia
115
Affirmative Action
7. Dignity and Equality in Barnard
Samantha Vice
135
8. Affirmative Action and Intensity of Review:
South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard
Chris McConnachie
163
The Zimbabwe Torture Docket Case
9. South Africa’s Competing Obligations in Relation to International Crimes
Lilian Chenwi & Franziska Sucker
199
10. Neither Complimentary nor Complementary: National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v Southern African Litigation Centre and Another
Salim A Nakhjavani
247
Articles
11. Constitutional Heedlessness and Over-Excitement in the Common Law of Delict’s Development
Emile Zitzke
259
12. Against the Interests of Justice: Ignoring Distributive Justice When Certifying Class Actions
Khomotso Moshikaro
291
Case Comment
13. No Place for the Poor: The Governance of Removal in Zulu and SAITF
Irene de Vos & Dennis Webster
321

 

 

ABOUT CCR

The Constitutional Court Review is the only international journal of record that devotes its attention to the work of South Africa’s highest court. The long essays, replies, articles and case comments use recent decisions to navigate more general currents in the Court’s jurisprudence. The authors may be first rate black letter lawyers, but their interventions are about what South African constitutional law ought to be, not what it is. The Journal follows a strict double-blind, peer-reviewed editorial process. It both solicits work from outstanding scholars and accepts submissions that warrant inclusion. The Editors engage with their authors from start to finish and follow internationally accepted best practices. The Constitutional Court Review has been fortunate to have several steadfast sponsors: the University of the Witwatersrand, the University of Johannesburg, the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, SAIFAC, Juta Law and Constitutional Law of South Africa. For any inquiries please contact the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Stu Woolman, at stuart.woolman@wits.ac.za. We look forward to your responses to our work.

EDITOR’S NOTE

Chips all in. If you can find a better single volume on South African constitutional law in any South African law journal, then I will buy you a bottle of your favourite scotch. I’m not playing with house money. Read more

SPONSORS

sponsors_konrad

sponsors_saifac

sponsors_closa

sponsors_wits