CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Dental Association and Another

Citation[2015] ZACC 2
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional LawAdministrative LawHealth Law

Facts of the Case

On 21 March 2014, the President signed Proclamation 21 of 2014 bringing sections 36-40 of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 into operation on 1 April 2014. These sections criminalized the provision of health services without a certificate of need. However, the Minister of Health had not yet promulgated the necessary regulations that would enable health service providers to apply for and obtain such certificates. This created an untenable situation where all health service providers in South Africa were effectively engaging in criminal conduct, as no one could obtain the required certificate of need in the absence of regulations. The President acknowledged that the Proclamation was issued in error, as his advisors mistakenly counseled him that the regulations were in place when they were not. The South African Dental Association (SADA) brought this alarming situation to the attention of the Presidency. The President, along with other government officials, applied directly to the Constitutional Court to declare the Proclamation invalid and set it aside.

Legal Issues

  • Whether direct access to the Constitutional Court should be granted under section 167(6)(a) of the Constitution
  • Whether the President's decision to bring sections 36-40 of the National Health Act into operation was rationally connected to the purpose for which the power was given
  • Whether the Proclamation was invalid and should be set aside
  • Whether the exercise of public power by the President was subject to rationality review

Judicial Outcome

1. Direct access granted. 2. Proclamation 21 of 2014 declared invalid and set aside. 3. No order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principle established is that the President's decision to bring legislation into operation through proclamation is subject to rationality review. Such a decision must be rationally connected to the purpose for which the power was given. Rationality is assessed objectively and is not affected by the President's good faith or intentions. Where a proclamation brings provisions into operation that criminalize conduct but provides no lawful means of compliance (such as bringing into force requirements for certificates of need without the regulations necessary to obtain such certificates), the decision is not rationally connected to achieving an orderly implementation of the regulatory scheme and is therefore invalid under the Constitution and the rule of law.

Obiter Dicta

The Court noted that while Parliament has the power to correct the President's decision, in this case judicial intervention would not upset the legislative process or infringe the separation of powers. The Court also observed that no criminal prosecutions had apparently been brought under the invalid provisions, but their existence was nevertheless undesirable as health service providers might be inhibited or discouraged from providing essential services at risk of criminal sanction. The Court acknowledged that considerable cost and inconvenience might be occasioned by calling Parliament to address the matter, and that there is no mechanism in the National Health Act itself to remedy the consequences of the Proclamation. The Court emphasized that it is an inevitable consequence of the rule of law that the Proclamation may not be ignored until it is set aside, even though issued in error.

Legal Significance

This case is significant in South African constitutional law for several reasons: (1) It affirms the principle established in Pharmaceutical Manufacturers that the President's exercise of power to bring legislation into operation is subject to rationality review under the rule of law; (2) It demonstrates the Constitutional Court's willingness to review executive action, even when done in good faith, if it fails the objective rationality test; (3) It reinforces that rationality review is an objective standard not dependent on subjective good intentions; (4) It illustrates the Court's approach to granting direct access in urgent matters of constitutional importance where there are no factual disputes and only the Constitutional Court can provide effective relief; (5) It confirms that even though the President could not withdraw the Proclamation after its commencement date had passed, judicial review remained available as a remedy; (6) It demonstrates judicial oversight of executive power in the context of health services regulation, an area of fundamental constitutional rights under sections 27 and 28 of the Constitution.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 4 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Brink v Kitshoff NOCCT 15/95
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the Constitutional Court is generally reluctant to sit as a court of first and final instance.

  • Luke M Tembani and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another(167/2021) [2022] ZASCA 70 (20 May 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the President may lawfully withdraw a proclamation once a mistake is realized, in unambiguous terms, and before it comes into…

  • Minister of Social Development v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others; MEC, Social Development, Eastern Cape & Others v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others(71/2021) [2022] ZASCA 119 (29 August 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a proclamation may not be ignored until it is set aside (an inevitable consequence of the rule of law) and that judicial review is…

  • Namasthethu Electrical (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Another(201/19) [2020] ZASCA 74
    Cites

    Cited in support of the principle that a proclamation may not be ignored until set aside.

Cited By 118 Cases

  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    Cites

    Authority that exercise of all public power must comply with doctrine of legality and rule of law.

  • Absa Bank Limited v Mahomed Arif and Abdul Shiraz(876/12) [2012] ZASCA 1 (20 January 2014)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that judicial officers are obliged to disclose only such facts as might reasonably be relevant to a recusal application.

  • A Bullock NO & 2 Others v Provincial Government of North West ProvinceCase number: 44/03 (Supreme Court of Appeal)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that administrative action is designed to control the conduct of public administration when it exercises public power, and for…

  • AfriForum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and Others(778/24) [2026] ZASCA 28 (13 March 2026)
    Cites

    Cited for the general rule that if a private party is successful in constitutional litigation against the state, the state should pay the private party's costs.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
  • Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA: In re Ex parte President of RSA2000 (2) SA 674 (CC)
    Applies

    Court applied the rationality test from this case to determine whether the President's decision to issue the Proclamation was rationally related to its…

  • Xolisile Zondi v Member of the Executive Council for Traditional and Local Government Affairs and Others(CCT 73/03) [2004] ZACC 19
    Cites

    Cited to establish that direct access is granted only if it is in the interests of justice to do so.

  • Akbar Allie v Foodworld Stores Distribution Centre (Proprietary) Limited and OthersCase no: 353/02 (SCA)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the trial court's advantages on demeanour should not be overemphasised, truthfulness requires consideration of probabilities,…

  • Allan Aubrey Boesak v The StateCase No 105/99 (SCA) [Judgment delivered 12 May 2000]
    Applies

    Court applies the rule in Browne v Dunn that cross-examination requires that a witness must be given opportunity to respond to challenges and that the precise…

  • Andre Jonas v The StateCase No. 586/97 (Supreme Court of Appeal)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that allegations must be put to a party during proceedings, not raised for the first time by the magistrate in judgment without giving…

  • Antonio Van Willing and Fareez Mohamed v The State(109/2014) [2015] ZASCA 52 (27 March 2015)
    Cites

    Cites para 124 which followed Oosthuizen on the treatment of contradictions in evidence.

  • Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 91/12) [2013] ZACC 13
    Appeal From

    This judgment deals with the application for confirmation of part of the High Court order and conditional leave to appeal; the High Court set aside the…

  • Atwell Sibusiso Makhanya NO and Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs v Goede Wellington Boerdery (Pty) LtdCase No: 230/12 and 233/12 [2012] ZASCA 205 (30 November 2012)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the test for determining administrative action is not the functionary but the function.

  • Barnett and Others v Minister of Land Affairs and Others(304/06) [2007] ZASCA 95
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished on the basis that it involved an Act whose operation depended entirely on subordinate legislation not yet in existence, unlike the present case…

  • Basil A Holford v Carleo Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Others(977/2013) [2014] ZASCA 195 (28 November 2014)
    Applies

    Applied for principles distinguishing subjective manner of witness testimony from objective content, demeanour as a factor not determinative without regard to…

  • Beweging vir Christelik-Volkseie Onderwys v Minister of Education(308/2011) [2012] ZASCA 45 (29 March 2012)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that in deciding whether an exercise of public power constitutes administrative action the primary focus is on the function rather…

  • Bezuidenhout v Minister of Basic Education and OthersJS2283/2019 (LC) (Unreported, delivered 17 February 2025)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that a higher threshold must be met before leave to appeal may be granted, requiring more than a mere possibility that another court…

  • Billy Lesedi Masetlha v The President of the Republic of South Africa and Manala Elias Manzini(CCT 01/07) [2007] ZACC 20
    Applies

    Applied to distinguish between executive and administrative action, and to recognize constraints on the President's powers including legality and rationality.

  • Chirwa v Transnet Limited and Others(CCT 78/06) [2007] ZACC 23
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that what matters in determining whether conduct is administrative action is not the arm of government to which the functionary…

  • Colleen Mzingisi Dumani v Desmond Nair & another(144/2012) [2012] ZASCA 196 (30 November 2012)
    Cites

    Cited as authority for the doctrine of legality which requires that power conferred on a functionary to make decisions in the public interest should be…

  • Combrink v The State(471/10) [2011] ZASCA 116 (23 June 2011)
    Cites

    The court cites this case for the principle that an appeal court should not interfere with credibility findings of the trial court.

  • Crots v Pretorius(34/10) [2010] ZASCA 107 (17 September 2010)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that if a witness is not given the opportunity to respond to an aspect, it would be unfair to reject his evidence on that aspect.

  • Democratic Alliance v The Minister of Home Affairs and another(67/2022) [2023] ZASCA 97 (13 June 2023)
    Cites

    Cited to explain that courts cannot substitute their opinions for those of the decision-maker as long as the decision is rational.

  • Dendy v University of the Witwatersrand(597/05) [2007] ZASCA 30
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that common law must evolve within the framework of the Constitution consistently with basic norms of the legal order.

  • Dexion Europe Limited v Universal Storage Systems (Proprietary) LimitedCase No 500/2000
    Applies

    Court applies the rule that a witness's attention must be drawn to imputations that will be made during argument.

  • Die Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit en Die Nasionale Kommissaris van die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens v John Christopher GeldenhuysSaaknommer: 373/2002 (SCA) (reported as Geldenhuys v The Minister of Safety and Security and Another 2002 (4) SA 719 (C) at trial level)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that evidence presented in chief which is not disputed is taken as accepted.

  • Drift Supersand (Pty) Limited v Mogale City Local Municipality(1185/2016) [2017] ZASCA 118 (22 September 2017)
    Applies

    Applied in relation to the definition and requirements of legitimate expectation, namely that it is an objective question whether such an expectation is…

  • Dr Wouter Basson v Prof J F M Hugo & others(968/16) [2017] ZASCA 01 (17 January 2018)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the recusal right is designed to ensure a fair trial, entrenched in the Constitution, and that an impartial judge is a…

  • Duwayne Esau and Others v Minister of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others(611/2020) [2021] ZASCA 9 (28 January 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the principles of common law continue to inform the content of administrative law and other aspects of public law, and will…

  • Economic Freedom Fighters v Gordhan and Others; Public Protector and Another v Gordhan and Others[2020] ZACC 10
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the judiciary is charged with determining whether other organs of state have complied with the Constitution in exercising their…

  • Endangered Wildlife Trust and Another v Director-General (Acting) Department of Water and Sanitation and Another(1165/2023) [2025] ZASCA 69 (29 May 2025)
    Cites

    Cited at para 30 for the test for bias.

  • Four Wheel Drive Accessory Distributors CC v Leshni Rattan N O(1048/17) [2018] ZASCA 124 (26 September 2018)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that judicial independence and impartiality are cornerstones of a fair and just legal system.

  • Gary Patrick Porritt & Susan Hilary Bennett v The National Director of Public Prosecutions & others(978/2013) [2014] ZASCA 168 (21 October 2014)
    Applies

    The SARFU test for apprehension of judicial bias was applied by the court a quo but later found by the appeal court to be wrongly applied in the context of…

  • Gauteng Gambling Board & another v MEC for Economic Development, Gauteng Provincial Government(620/2012) [2013] ZASCA 67 (27 May 2013)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of legality, same case as the SA report above.

  • Gees v The Provincial Minister of Cultural Affairs and Sport, Western Cape(974/2015) [2015] ZASCA 136 (29 September 2016)
    Cites

    Alternative citation for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, cited for the principle of legality.

  • Green Willows Properties 215 (Pty) Ltd v Rogalla von Biberstein Investment Company (Pty) Ltd(20436/2014) [2015] ZASCA 133 (29 September 2015)
    Applies

    The court applied the objective test for recusal, namely whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would apprehend that the judge has not or will not…

  • Gregory Joseph Paola v Jaivadan Jeeva N.O and OthersCase number: 475/2002
    Cites

    The court cites this case at paragraph 168, footnote 132, where the Constitutional Court confirmed that SA Defence and Aid Fund v Minister of Justice remains…

  • Greys Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Public Works and OthersCase No: 347/04 (SCA)
    Cites

    Cited for inherent constitutional constraints on the exercise of public power and the meaning of administrative action.

  • Home Talk Developments (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality(225/2016) [2017] ZASCA 77 (2 June 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the rule relating to cross-examination that it is not open to a litigant to argue a proposition that was not put to the opposing witnesses.

  • Independent Communications Authority of South Africa and Others v Open Heaven Community Radio and Others(1133/2023) [2025] ZASCA 117 (12 August 2025)
    Cites

    Relied upon by ICASA to argue that conduct not authorised by law violates the principle of legality and would be liable for review.

  • Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors and Others v East Rand Member District of Chartered Accountants and Others(945/2022) [2024] ZASCA 114 (22 July 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts consider a range of factors in determining whether a power or function is executive or administrative, on a case-by-case…

  • Jason Lee Shackell v The StateCase No: 380/99
    Applies

    Court applies the test for judicial recusal formulated in the SARFU case, namely whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would reasonably apprehend…

  • JDJ Properties CC and Another v Umngeni Local Municipality and Another(873/11) [2012] ZASCA 186 (29 November 2012)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of review on grounds of legality and rationality.

  • Johan Marx v Die StaatSaak Nr: 397/04 (SCA)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that witnesses (including prominent ones) are spared ex post facto imputations of and speculations about motive.

  • Kasselman NO and Others v The South African National Road Agency SOC Ltd (SANRAL) and Others(297/2024) [2026] ZASCA 02 (12 January 2026)
    Applies

    Applied the principle that the focus of the inquiry as to whether conduct is administrative action is not on the arm of government to which the relevant actor…

  • Khetani Mbuise Nkabinde and Others v The State(115/2016) [2016] ZASCA 75 (01 June 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the threshold test for bias, namely whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would, on the correct facts, reasonably apprehend that the…

  • Kimberley Junior School v The Head of the Northern Cape Education Department(278/08) [2009] ZASCA 58 (28 May 2009)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle regarding jurisdictional facts under PAJA and cites this case as confirming that the common law judgment on jurisdictional facts…

  • Kunene and Others v Minister of Police(260/2020) [2021] ZASCA 76 (10 June 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that rationality is a minimum threshold requirement applicable to the exercise of all public power.

  • Le Grange v The State(040/2008) [2008] ZASCA 102 (18 September 2008)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that an impartial judge is a fundamental prerequisite for a fair trial.

  • Leigh William Roering NNO and Another v Qedani Mahlangu(581/2015) [2016] ZASCA 79 (30 May 2016)
    Cites

    Cited as an example of President Mandela giving evidence and submitting to cross-examination even though the decision to require him to do so was unfounded;…

  • Lentikile Michael Mocumi v The State(323/2015) [2015] ZASCA 201 (2 December 2015)
    Cites

    The court cites this case for the principle that demeanour is not an infallible guide to truth and should not be over-emphasised lest the appellant's right of…

  • Levin v Levin(644/09) [2011] ZASCA 114 (03 June 2011)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that imputations of dishonesty must be put to witnesses to afford them an opportunity to respond.

  • Majikazana v The State(559/09) [2010] ZASCA 29 (26 March 2010)
    Applies

    Court applies the Constitutional Court's holding that a judge who sits where there is an objective reasonable apprehension of bias acts inconsistently with s…

  • Mary Patricia King & 92 Others and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control and AnotherCase no: 561/04 (Supreme Court of Appeal)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that 'constitutional obligation' in s 167(4)(e) must bear a restricted or narrow meaning to avoid conflict with s 172(2)(a).

  • Masemola v Special Pensions Appeal Board and Another[2019] ZACC 39
    Considers

    Court considers the case which engaged with the basis on which courts may review the exercise of presidential powers and gave historical content to…

  • Maxrae Estates (Pty) Ltd v The Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries & Another(407/2020) [2021] ZASCA 73 (09 June 2021)
    Applies

    Applied for the test on rationality in administrative decisions, that the question whether a decision is rationally related to the purpose for which the power…

  • Medscheme Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another v Yusuf BhamjeeCase No: 214/04 (SCA)
    Cites

    Cited to support the principle that credibility findings must be evaluated against wider probabilities and not solely on demeanour.

  • Member of the Executive Council for Health, Province of the Eastern Cape v Kirland Investments (Pty) Limited t/a Eye & Laser Institute(473/12) [2013] ZASCA 58 (16 May 2013)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that a decision only takes place when translated into an overt act and is final only when publicly notified; prior to that the…

  • Member of the Executive Council for Local Government and Development Planning of the Western Cape Province and Another v Paarl Poultry Enterprises CC t/a Rosendal Poultry FarmCase CCT 38/01 (Constitutional Court, decided 14 December 2001)
    Applies

    The Court applies this case to establish that judicial review of public power is a constitutional matter and that the common law and the Constitution are…

  • Metcash Trading Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue ServiceCCT 3/2000; 2001 (1) SA 1109 (CC); 2000 (12) BCLR 1357 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for Chaskalson P's statement on the shift in the normative basis of administrative law from common law to the Constitution.

  • Meyer & others v Big Five Developments (Pty) Ltd(1017/17) [2018] ZASCA 136 (28 September 2018)
    Cites

    The court cites this case for the rule from Browne v Dunn that if a point in dispute is left unchallenged in cross-examination, the unchallenged testimony is…

  • Minister of Correctional Services and Others v Kwakwa and AnotherCase no: 60/2000
    Cites

    Cited in support of the doctrine of legality requiring exercise of public power to comply with the Constitution.

  • Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Motau and Others[2014] ZACC 18
    Cites

    Cited for the distinction between implementing legislation and performing executive functions in national legislation

  • Explore More Cases

    More Constitutional Law cases

    • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
    • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The StateSC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • Aaron Musiteyi v The StateHMT 2-21, B 09/21
    • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    • AB and Another v Minister of Social Development[2016] ZACC 43
    • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97