National Credit Regulator v Opperman

Cited for the Court assuming without finding that a claim for loss of earning capacity or support is property, and stating that the definition of property for…

Applied to set out the test for arbitrary deprivation of property under section 25(1) and to address whether a deprivation is arbitrary when the law does not…

Cited in reference to reliance on the link to ownership in evaluating whether there is a deprivation or whether section 25 comes into play.

Cited to support that the NCA must be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the purposes set out in section 3 and that interpretation requires careful…

Cited for the principle that interference significant enough to have a legally relevant impact on the rights of the affected party amounts to deprivation.

Cited to support the proposition that deprivation of ownership of corporeal property constitutes deprivation for purposes of section 25.

Cited to support that this Court accepted a trade mark to be property, albeit incorporeal, deserving protection under section 25.

Cited for the principle that whether there has been a deprivation depends on the extent of interference with the use, enjoyment or exploitation of the…

Cited for the principle that laws must be written in a clear and accessible manner, and the law must indicate with reasonable certainty to those bound by it…

Applied for the principle that only once has this Court found legislation to be impermissibly vague and what constitutes vagueness, including the requirement…

Cited for the principle that if two meanings promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights, that which better does so should be adopted.

Applied for the principle that judicial officers must prefer interpretations of legislation that fall within constitutional bounds over those that do not,…

Cited for the principle that the more substantial the inroad into fundamental rights, the more persuasive the grounds of justification must be, and that an…

Cited for the principle that forfeiture must be consistent with the Constitution.

Cited to support the proposition that deprivation of ownership of corporeal property constitutes deprivation for purposes of section 25.

Cited for the principle that a lack of discretion on the part of a court to forfeit property would result in an arbitrary deprivation of property.

Cited for the proposition that the main objective of the NCA is to protect consumers, but the interests of credit providers should not be minimised or…

Cited for the principle that forfeiture must be consistent with the Constitution.

Cited for a recent comprehensive treatment of the rules of interpretation.

Cited on the relationship between arbitrariness and justification enquiries under section 36 of the Constitution.

Court cites this case as approving the interpretive principle from Endumeni regarding interpretation of orders in context.

Cited for the rule that a statute should be construed in conformity with the common law unless a plain intention to alter it is evident.

Cited in footnote as endorsing with approval by majority of Constitutional Court the Endumeni principles.

Cited in the dissent for its thrust in favour of avoiding legislative sledgehammers.

Applied for the principle that a court should not conclude, without good reason, that words in a single document are tautologous or superfluous.

Cited for the proposition that the doctrine of vagueness, based on the rule of law, requires laws to be written in a clear manner with reasonable certainty but…

The Court applied National Credit Regulator v Opperman for the interpretative precept that every word must be given a meaning and words in an enactment should…

Court applied the longstanding rule of interpretation that every word must be given a meaning and that words in an enactment should not be treated as…

Cited for the principle that if more than one meaning is reasonably plausible, the one resulting in constitutional compliance must be chosen.

Cited for the principle that impermissibly vague provisions violate the rule of law, which is a founding principle of the Constitution.

Cited for the principle of purposive interpretation.

Cited for the broad and fact-sensitive approach the Court has taken to property rights under section 25(1) of the Constitution.

Court cited this judgment for the principle that every word must be given a meaning, and no word should be ignored or treated as superfluous.

Cited for the presumption against superfluity in construing documents.

Cited for the rule of law requirement that laws be reasonably clear and certain, and that before constitutional compliance can be evaluated, a court must…

The Court cites Opperman for the proposition that personal rights such as enrichment claims may constitute property under section 25 and uses it to support the…

Applied for the principle that the tribunal's power to order refunds under section 150 falls within its parameters and that such an order is appropriate to…

Cited for the principle that impermissibly vague provisions violate the rule of law, a founding constitutional principle.

Cited for the principle that the rights of a creditor under a deed of suretyship constitute property within the meaning of s 25(1) of the Constitution.

Cited for the striking down as unconstitutional of section 89(5)(c) of the National Credit Act, which previously prohibited credit providers from recovering…

Cited for the proposition that personal rights, such as an enrichment claim, have been recognised as constitutional property in terms of s 25 of the…

The court cited this decision to support the long-standing rule of statutory interpretation that every word in an enactment should be given a meaning and not…