Women’s Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others

The Women’s Legal Centre Trust, acting in the public interest, applied directly to the Constitutional Court for an order declaring that the President and Parliament had failed to fulfil their constitutional obligations by not enacting legislation recognising and regulating Muslim marriages. The application relied on the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and section 7(2), and followed the South African Law Reform Commission’s 2003 report and draft Muslim Marriages Bill, which had not been enacted. The applicant contended that this failure infringed rights to equality, dignity, religious freedom and cultural participation. The respondents opposed the application and challenged the Court’s jurisdiction. The matter was confined to preliminary questions concerning exclusive jurisdiction under section 167(4)(e) and, alternatively, whether direct access under section 167(6)(a) was appropriate.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and direct access to the Constitutional Court was refused.

The case is significant for clarifying the narrow scope of the Constitutional Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under section 167(4)(e). It draws an important distinction between obligations resting solely on the President or Parliament and broader constitutional duties borne by the state as a whole. The judgment reinforces the role of High Courts and the Supreme Court of Appeal in constitutional litigation and underscores judicial restraint and respect for separation of powers.