President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others

In September 1997, the President of the Republic of South Africa, acting in terms of section 84(2)(f) of the Constitution, appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate the financial and administrative affairs of the South African Rugby Football Union (SARFU) and related bodies. SARFU, affiliated rugby unions, and Dr Louis Luyt challenged the appointment and the accompanying proclamation applying the Commissions Act in the Transvaal High Court. De Villiers J set aside both the appointment of the commission and the proclamation, holding that the President’s conduct was unlawful. The President, Minister of Sport and Recreation, and Director-General sought to appeal the High Court’s order directly to the Constitutional Court and applied for condonation for the late filing of the appeal. The respondents opposed this, contending that the appeal lay to the Supreme Court of Appeal and not the Constitutional Court.

Condonation for the late noting of the appeal was granted, and the Constitutional Court held that it was the proper forum to hear the appeal against the High Court’s order declaring the President’s conduct invalid.

This case is a leading authority on the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court in matters involving declarations of constitutional invalidity, particularly concerning the conduct of the President. It clarifies the relationship between sections 167 and 172 of the Constitution and establishes that appeals against such orders lie directly to the Constitutional Court, reinforcing its supervisory role in the separation of powers.