Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The respondents based their claim on two constitutional provisions: section 26 of the Constitution, which provides that everyone has the right of access to adequate housing, thereby imposing an obligation on the State to take reasonable legislative and other measures to ensure the progressive realisation of this right within its available resources; and
Irene Grootboom (c. 1969 – 2008) was a South African housing rights activist best known for her victory before the Constitutional Court in 2000. [1] The Court found that the government had not met its obligation to provide adequate alternative housing for the residents of Kraaifontein ’s Wallacedene informal settlement .
The new public administration (NPA) is a perspective in public administration that emerged in the late 20th century, focusing on more collaborative and citizen-centric approach. It emphasizes responsiveness to public needs, community involvement, and the integration of management and social science principles in public sector decision-making.
The creation of the NPA was required by section 179 of the Constitution of South Africa, which came into force in February 1997. Prior to the passage of the NPA Act, public prosecutions were under the direction of the attorneys-general, with a separate attorney-general appointed by the President for each division of the High Court. The offices ...
The Grootboom reasonableness test was applied by the Constitutional Court in the Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign case (2002). The claimant argued that the Ministry of Health infringed section 27(3) Constitution of South Africa by failing to distribute the free medicine nevirapine that could prevent mother-to-child transmission of ...
Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions and Another, Amici Curiae) [1] is an important case in South African property law, heard by the Constitutional Court [2] on August 21, 2008, with judgment handed down on June 10.
Any investigation around the accused’s silence cannot be said to infringe his right to silence unless the trial is thereby rendered unfair. The same goes for all decisions concerning admissibility of evidence as well as the use of silence in the drawing of inferences. The fairness of the trial as an objective is fundamental and key.
However, courts have interpreted the section 29(1)(a) right to basic education to extend to access to the equipment that is necessary for such education: [33] in Minister of Basic Education v Basic Education for All, the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that section 29(1)(a) entitled all learners at public schools "to be provided with every ...