Matches in DBpedia 2015-10 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Coetzee_and_Matiso> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 98 of
98
with 100 triples per page.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso abstract "Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa; Matiso and Others v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison, and Others is an important case in South African law, with an especial bearing on civil procedure and constitutional law. It concerned the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act. It was heard, March 6, 1995, in the Constitutional Court by Chaskalson P, Mahomed DP, Ackermann J, Didcott J, Kentridge AJ, Kriegler J, Langa J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J and Sachs J. They delivered judgment on September 22. The applicant's attorneys were the Legal Resources Centres of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg. Attorneys for the first and second respondents in the Coetzee application were the State Attorneys of Cape Town and Johannesburg, and Du Plessis & Eksteen for the Association of Law Societies. IMS Navsa SC (with him L. Mpati) appeared for the applicants in both matters, D. Potgieter for the first and second respondents in the Coetzee matter, and JC du Plessis for the Association of Law Societies (as amicus curiae).Sections 65A to 65M of the Magistrates' Courts Act provided for the imprisonment of judgment debtors in certain circumstances, and were found by the court to be inconsistent with the right to personal freedom provided for in section 11(1) in Chapter 3 of the Interim Constitution. Such provisions were also not capable of being justified as reasonable in terms of the limitation provisions of section 33(1) of the Constitution. It was further impossible, the court found, to excise only those provisions which failed to distinguish between debtors who could not pay and those who could but would not. It was possible, however, to sever from the rest those provisions which made up the option of imprisonment, leaving the balance of the debt-collecting system usefully in force. The court declined to exercise its powers under section 98(5) of the Constitution to keep the provisions in issue alive until Parliament had rectified them, as the debt-collecting system was not dependent upon the imprisonment sanction for its viability, and such provisions were clearly inconsistent with section 11(1) and so manifestly indefensible under section 33(1) that there was no warrant for their retention, even temporarily.The court also held that, in declarating invalid the provisions of a statute inconsistent with the fundamental rights in chapter 3 of the Constitution, and in severing the invalid provisions from the remainder of the statute, the court should take account of the coming into force of the new Constitution and pay due regard to the values which it requires the court to promote. The court, held Sachs J, should posit a notional, contemporary Parliament dealing with the text in issue when the choice about severance falls to be made.The case is often cited now for its provision of the test for severability:Although severability in the context of constitutional law may often require special treatment, in the present case the trite test can properly be applied: if the good is not dependent on the bad and can be separated from it, one gives effect to the good that remains after the separation if it still gives effect to the main objective of the statute. The test has two parts: first, is it possible to sever the invalid provisions and, second, if so, is what remains giving effect to the purpose of the legislative scheme?The effect of section 232(3) of the Constitution would be to give effect to the principle of "reading down" the provisions in issue, permitting a pared-down construction of the legislation so as to rescue it from a declaration of invalidity. Importantly, however, it did not require restricted interpretation of fundamental rights so as to interfere as little as possible with pre-existing law. Nor was it the function of the court to fill in lacunae in pre-constitutional statutes to save them from invalidity.As to the applicability of the provisions of section 33(1) of the Constitution, which justify the limitation of a fundamental right, the court set out a two-stage approach. It appeared to the court that the more profound the interest being protected, and the graver the violation, the more stringent should be the scrutiny. The two-stage process was not to be applied mechanically and in a sequentially divided way. The values derived from the concept of an open and democratic society, based on freedom and equality, were to suffuse whole process, such values being normative in the employment of such a process. The court would frequently be required to make difficult value judgments where logic and precedent were of limited assistance.In interpreting the Constitution, the court would have to consider the area of comparative law. Section 35 of the Constitution was to be understood as requiring the court to give due attention to international experience, with a view to finding principles rather than rigid formulae, and to look for rationales rather than rules.".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageID "38028241".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageLength "34375".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageOutDegree "59".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageRevisionID "637259793".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink African_Realty_Trust_v_Sherman.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Albie_Sachs.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Arthur_Chaskalson.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Board_of_Regents_of_State_Colleges_v._Roth.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Board_of_Regents_of_State_Colleges_v_Roth.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Cape_Provincial_Division.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Category:1995_in_South_African_law.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Category:1995_in_case_law.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Category:Constitutional_Court_of_South_Africa_cases.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Chief_Justice_of_South_Africa.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink City_of_Mobile,_Alabama_v_Bolden.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Civil_procedure_in_South_Africa.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_South_Africa,_1993.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Constitutional_Court_of_South_Africa.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Eastern_Cape_Division.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Edmonton_Journal_v_Alberta_AG.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Erasmus_v_Thyssen.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Hicks_v_Feiock.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Hofmeyr_v_Fourie;_BJBS_Contractors_(Pty)_Ltd_v_Lategan.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Hunter_et_al_v_Southam_Inc.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Ismail_Mahomed.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Johann_Kriegler.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Johannesburg_City_Council_v_Chesterfield_House_(Pty)_Ltd.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink John_Didcott.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Judgment_debtor.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Kate_ORegan.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Kharak_Singh_v_State_of_Uttar_Pradesh_and_Others.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Knott_v_Tuck.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Laurie_Ackermann.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Law_of_South_Africa.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Lourens_Ackermann.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Maneka_Gandhi_v_Union_of_India_AIR.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Matiso_and_Others_v_Commanding_Officer,_Port_Elizabeth_Prison,_and_Another.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Matiso_v_Commanding_Officer,_Port_Elizabeth_Prison,_and_Another.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Operation_Dismantle_Inc_v_The_Queen.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Pius_Langa.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink President_of_the_Constitutional_Court_of_South_Africa.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Quentins_v_Komane.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink R_v_France.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink R_v_Keegstra.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink R_v_Morgentaler.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink R_v_Oakes.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Re_Singh_and_Minister_of_Employment_and_Immigration.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink S_v_Benetti.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink S_v_Chirara;_S_v_Hwengwa_and_Others;_S_v_Pisaunga;_S_v_Muzondiwa_and_Others.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink S_v_Khumalo.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink S_v_Lasker.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink S_v_Makwanyane.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink S_v_Makwanyane_and_Another.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink S_v_Motsoesoana.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink S_v_Williams_(1995).
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink S_v_Williams_and_Others.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink S_v_Zuma.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink S_v_Zuma_and_Others.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Silver_v_United_Kingdom.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink South_African_Constitution_of_1993.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink South_Eastern_Cape_Local_Division.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Sydney_Kentridge.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Tholie_Madala.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Thomson_Newspapers_v_Canada.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Tödt_v_Ipser.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink United_States_of_America_v_Cotroni.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink United_States_v_Cotroni.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Van_der_Bergh_v_John_Price_Estates_and_Others.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Western_Cape_Division.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Woods_and_Others_v_Minister_of_Justice,_Legal_and_Parliamentary_Affairs_and_Others.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink X_v_Federal_Republic_of_Germany.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLink Yvonne_Mokgoro.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageWikiLinkText "Coetzee and Matiso".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso court Constitutional_Court_of_South_Africa.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso dateDecided "1995-09-22".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso decisionBy "Kriegler".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso fullName "Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others; Matiso and Others v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison and Others".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso hasPhotoCollection Coetzee_and_Matiso.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso judges "President Chaskalson, Deputy President Mahomed, Justices Ackermann, Didcott, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs, Acting Justice Kentridge".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso name "Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa;".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso name "Matiso v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso numberOfJudges "11".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso priorActions "Referrals from Cape Provincial Division and South Eastern Cape Local Division".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageUsesTemplate Template:Infobox_court_case.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wikiPageUsesTemplate Template:Reflist.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso subject Category:1995_in_South_African_law.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso subject Category:1995_in_case_law.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso subject Category:Constitutional_Court_of_South_Africa_cases.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso hypernym Case.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso type Person.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso comment "Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa; Matiso and Others v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison, and Others is an important case in South African law, with an especial bearing on civil procedure and constitutional law. It concerned the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act.".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso label "Coetzee and Matiso".
- Coetzee_and_Matiso sameAs m.0pcfgmm.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso sameAs Q5140840.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso sameAs Q5140840.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso wasDerivedFrom Coetzee_and_Matiso?oldid=637259793.
- Coetzee_and_Matiso isPrimaryTopicOf Coetzee_and_Matiso.