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

The State v Sipho Zakele Ntsele

CitationCCT 25/97 (decided 14 October 1997)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional LawCriminal Law
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
Drug Offences

Facts of the Case

The accused, Sipho Zakele Ntsele, was convicted by a magistrate of dealing in dagga in contravention of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992. The magistrate relied on a rebuttable presumption created by section 21(1)(b) of the Act, which presumed that a person in charge of cultivated land on which dagga plants are found has dealt in such plants. On automatic review, the Natal High Court (per Combrinck J, Hurt J concurring) questioned the constitutionality of this presumption and declared section 21(1)(b) invalid as inconsistent with the Constitution. The accused was released on his own recognizance pending confirmation by the Constitutional Court.

Legal Issues

  • Whether section 21(1)(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is inconsistent with the constitutional presumption of innocence
  • Which Constitution applies (interim or new Constitution) given the transitional period
  • Whether the High Court had proper jurisdiction to declare the provision invalid
  • What ancillary orders are appropriate regarding retrospectivity and the remittal of the case

Judicial Outcome

1. The order of the Natal High Court declaring section 21(1)(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 invalid was confirmed. 2. The declaration of invalidity shall invalidate any application of section 21(1)(b) in any criminal trial where the verdict was entered after the interim Constitution came into force and in which an appeal, review is pending or time for appeal has not expired as at the date of judgment. 3. The case was referred back to the Natal High Court to be dealt with in accordance with the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

A statutory presumption that instructs a court to infer guilt from circumstances that do not necessarily support such inference violates the constitutional presumption of innocence (section 25(3)(c) of the interim Constitution and section 35(3)(h) of the Constitution). Section 21(1)(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992, which creates a rebuttable presumption that a person in charge of cultivated land on which dagga plants are found has dealt in such plants, is unconstitutional because it interferes with ordinary processes of inferential reasoning and entails a risk of conviction despite reasonable doubt. Such interference cannot be justified under the limitations clauses of either Constitution. Where the interests of justice so require, courts may apply the new Constitution rather than the interim Constitution to pending proceedings, notwithstanding transitional provisions.

Obiter Dicta

Kriegler J made several important observations: (1) When High Courts exercise their power under section 172(1)(b) to make orders limiting retrospective effect or suspending declarations of invalidity, they should give full reasons for the benefit of the Constitutional Court in confirmation proceedings. (2) Questions of retrospectivity, prospectivity and conditional suspension often present difficult choices that may depend on evidence regarding factors such as impact on the administration of justice or financial consequences for third parties. Where such evidence is necessary, it should be received and evaluated by the court of first instance. (3) When the constitutionality of a statute is in jeopardy, courts should consider whether to give notice of proposed invalidation to organs of state and possibly others concerned with administration of the provision or likely to be affected by its demise. (4) As a general principle, an order of invalidity should have no effect on cases finalized prior to the date of the order of invalidity, to avoid unnecessary dislocation and uncertainty in the criminal justice process.

Legal Significance

This case is significant in South African constitutional jurisprudence as it reinforces the Constitutional Court's commitment to protecting the presumption of innocence as a fundamental right. It forms part of a series of cases (including Bhulwana, Julies, and Mbatha) striking down reverse onus provisions in criminal legislation that impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the accused. The judgment also provides important guidance on transitional constitutional issues between the interim and new Constitutions, particularly the application of the 'interests of justice' proviso in item 17 of Schedule 6. Furthermore, it clarifies procedural matters regarding declarations of invalidity by High Courts subject to Constitutional Court confirmation, the granting of temporary relief pending confirmation, and the considerations relevant to determining the retrospective effect of declarations of invalidity, emphasizing that successful litigants should obtain relief and that similarly situated persons should not be treated differently.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 42 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Brink v Kitshoff NOCCT 15/95
    Cites

    Cited as an example of a case where evidence was necessary regarding the financial consequences for third parties of a retrospective order.

  • Jaintilal Parbhoo and Others v Arnold Getz NO and AnotherCCT 16/97
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that it is undesirable to invalidate a statute without having afforded the organ of state responsible for its administration an…

  • The State v T Makwanyane and M Mchunu1995 (3) SA 391 (CC); 1995 (6) BCLR 665 (CC); CCT/3/94
    Applies

    The Constitutional Court applies the reasoning from Bhulwana to find that the presumption in section 21(1)(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act interferes…

  • The State v Wellington Mbatha and The State v Nicolaas Marthinus PrinslooCCT 19/95 and CCT 35/95
    Applies

    The Constitutional Court applies the principles set out in Mbatha regarding the invalidity of section 40(1) of the Arms and Ammunition Act, finding that the…

Cited By 152 Cases

  • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that if legislation is capable of a reasonable interpretation which renders it constitutionally compliant, that construction must be…

  • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that this Court will not adjudicate an appeal if it no longer presents an existing or live controversy.

  • Abduraghman Thebus and Moegamat Adams v The StateCCT 36/02
    Cites

    Cited for an example of when a rule of the common law is inconsistent with a constitutional provision and requires adaptation.

  • Absa Bank Limited v Peter Jacobus Janse van Rensburg and Gina Mari Janse van Rensburg and Absa Bank Limited v Elizabeth Francina Maree and Stefanus Maree(228/2013) [2014] ZASCA 34
    Cites

    Cited in relation to the Constitutional Court's approach to hearing appeals whose issues have gone dead.

Practice This Case

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

  • Afgri Operations Limited v Hamba Fleet (Pty) Limited(542/2016) [2017] ZASCA 24 (24 March 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the general principles that an appeal court will not interfere with a lower court's discretion unless the court was influenced by wrong principles,…

  • AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others; Minister of Police v AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others[2021] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that in fashioning a declaration of invalidity, a court must keep in balance the obligation to provide appropriate relief and the…

  • American Natural Soda Ash Corporation v Competition Commission of SACase number: 554/03
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that legitimate interpretive aids must be employed to avoid a finding of unconstitutionality and that a statutory provision should only…

  • Antonie Michael Du Plessis v Road Accident FundCase number: 443/2002
    Applies

    Applied for recognition of conjugal relationships between same-sex partners and for the principle that unfair discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation…

  • Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited v Merck Sharpe Dohme Corporation and Others[2019] ZACC 41
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that this Court functions better when assisted by a well-reasoned judgment below.

  • Azeem Hassan Walele v The City of Cape Town and Others
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that section 39(2) applies to the interpretation of all statutes.

  • Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and OthersCCT 27/03
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that past unfair discrimination frequently has ongoing negative consequences, and unless remedied, may continue indefinitely;…

  • Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that PAJA must be read in accordance with the Constitution where reasonably possible.

  • Big Valley Masters (Private) Limited v The Provincial Mining Director, Midlands Province N.O and Wilson MhuriHB 20/26; HCBC 988/25
    Cites

    Cited for the definition of mootness, stating that a case is moot if it no longer presents an existing or live controversy and would result in an advisory…

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

    Cited for the definition of when a case is moot and therefore not justiciable.

  • Buzani Dodo v The StateCCT 1/01, decided 5 April 2001
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the court's normative judgment in sentencing must be judicially exercised and is not unfettered.

  • Canaan Sodindo Banana v The StateJudgment No. S.C. 41/2000, Crim. Appeal No. 12/99
    Cites

    Cited for remarks on the harmful impact of criminalisation of consensual sodomy on gay men.

  • C and Others v Department of Health and Social Development, Gauteng and Others(CCT 55/11) [2012] ZACC 1
    Cites

    Cited as an example where reading-in was used to cure constitutional invalidity based on under-inclusiveness.

  • Centre for Child Law v Director-General: Department of Home Affairs and Others[2021] ZACC 31
    Cites

    Cited for the interpretive principle that legislation must be read conformably with the Constitution.

  • Chauke v The State(578/2015) [2015] ZASCA 181 (30 November 2015)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the right to a fair trial is a comprehensive and integrated right, the content of which is to be established on a case by case…

  • Chief Direko Lesapo v North West Agricultural BankCCT 23/99
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that limitations analysis requires consideration of the relation between the limitation and its purpose as well as less restrictive…

  • Chisuse and Others v Director-General, Department of Home Affairs and Another[2020] ZACC 20
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that if no reasonable interpretation consonant with the Constitution can be given to the statute, courts are required to declare the…

  • Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education2000 (10) BCLR 1051 (CC); CCT 4/00
    Cites

    Cited for the 'right to be different' and the diversity acknowledged by the Constitution.

  • City of Cape Town v Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd[2017] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for the general principle that this Court does not pronounce on issues which are moot.

  • City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng Development Tribunal(335/08) [2009] ZASCA 106 (22 September 2009)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the principle that legislation should be interpreted to conform with the Constitution where reasonably possible.

  • Clear Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services(757/10) [2011] ZASCA 164 (29 September 2011)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that a case is moot and not justifiable if it no longer presents an existing or live controversy.

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Bullion Star (Pty) LtdCSARS v Bullion Star (Pty) Ltd (894/2024) [2026] ZASCA 76 (22 May 2026)
    Cites

    cited for statement on privacy rights in social capacities

  • Cross-Border Road Transport Agency v Central African Road Services (Pty) Limited and Another[2015] ZACC 12
    Cites

    Court cites this case to explain the power under section 172(1)(b)(i) to limit retrospective effect of a declaration of invalidity and that, in the absence of…

  • Daniels v Campbell NO and OthersCCT 40/03; 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC); 2004 (7) BCLR 735 (CC)
    Considers

    This Court considered the interpretation of 'spouse' in the Aliens Control Act and held it could not be reasonably construed to include same-sex life partners.

  • David Dikoko v Thupi Zacharia MokhatlaCase CCT 62/05 (decided 3 August 2006)
    Cites

    Cited in relation to approach to appellate review of exercise of discretion.

  • Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others2000 (3) SA 936 (CC); 2000 (8) BCLR 837 (CC)
    Cites

    The court cites this case for the fundamental importance of human dignity in the constitutional framework, for the role of dignity in the limitations analysis,…

  • De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and Others(CCT 5/03) [2003] ZACC 19
    Cites

    Cited for the objective theory of constitutional invalidity, that the subjective position of a particular applicant is irrelevant to determining the validity…

  • Devraj Govender v The Minister of Safety and SecurityCase Number 342/99 (SCA)
    Cites

    Cited for the interpretative duty to read legislation in conformity with the Constitution.

  • DE v RH[2015] ZACC 18
    Cites

    Marriage has a central and special place and forms an important basis for family life. Family can be constituted in different ways and legal conceptions should…

  • Dobsa Services CC v Dlamini Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd and Another; Dlamini Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v Dobsa Services CC(050/2016) [2016] ZASCA 131 (28 September 2016)
    Cites

    The court cited this Constitutional Court case for the circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with judicial discretion, albeit in a different…

  • Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others2006 (6) SA 416 (CC); 2006 (12) BCLR 1399 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts should afford a remedy that is not only effective but also seen to be effective to make concrete the founding values of the…

  • Donald Veldman v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division)CCT 19/05 (Decided 5 December 2005)
    Cites

    Cited on the factors relevant to condonation applications.

  • Du Toit and Another v Minister for Welfare and Population Development and OthersCCT 40/01 (decided 10 September 2002)
    Cites

    Cited for the interpretation of the terms 'spouse' and 'marriage' in South African law and the recognition of same-sex relationships, as well as the concept of…

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

    Applied for the approach to section 36(1) of the Constitution, confirming that the approach in Makwanyane holds good and involves balancing the right infringed…

  • Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another[2020] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a court should only read words in if it can define with sufficient precision how the statute ought to be extended.

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

    Cited for the principle that an appellate court may interfere with a true discretion if there has been a material misdirection.

  • Electronic Media Network Limited and Others v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others[2017] ZACC 17
    Cites

    The Court cites this case as an example where words were read into a statute to cure a constitutional defect.

  • Elsie Gundwana v Steko Development CC and Others(CCT 44/10) [2011] ZACC 14
    Cites

    Cited for the doctrine of objective unconstitutionality.

  • Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Botha[2026] ZASCA 48 (9 April 2026)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that s 39(2) of the Constitution obliges courts to interpret legislation in a manner that advances the spirit, purport and objects of…

  • Esorfranki Pipelines (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mopani District Municipality and Others(40/13) [2014] ZASCA 21 (28 March 2014)
    Cites

    Cited for the test for appellate interference with the exercise of the trial court's discretion, namely that it must be shown that the lower court did not…

  • Estate Agency Affairs Board v Auction Alliance (Pty) Ltd and Others[2014] ZACC 3
    Applies

    The Court applied this judgment which struck down the common-law offence of sodomy retroactive to 1994 but declined to grant an order of unqualified…

  • Ethekwini Municipality v Combined Transport Services (Pty) Ltd(115/2010) [2010] ZASCA 158 (1 December 2010)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a case is moot and not justiciable if it no longer presents an existing or live controversy and courts should avoid giving…

  • FirstRand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank v Modingwana Harry Makaleng(034/16) [2016] ZASCA 169 (24 November 2016)
    Applies

    The dissenting judgment applied the principle that an appeal court will not interfere with a lower court's discretion unless influenced by wrong principles,…

  • Frans Barnard Potgieter v Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad: Gesondheid, Provinsiale Regering Gauteng and OthersCCT 26/01
    Applies

    The court applies the reasoning from this case to justify making the order of constitutional invalidity retrospective to 27 April 1994.

  • Garreth Anver Prince v The President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and OthersCase CCT 36/00 (Constitutional Court, decided 12 December 2000)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that relevant information for constitutional challenges must be placed before the court of first instance.

  • Gerhardus Francois Janse Van Rensburg NO and Another v Minister of Trade and Industry NO and Another(CCT 13/99) [2000] ZACC 17
    Applies

    Applied to support the principle that a moot issue is not justiciable and that constitutional invalidity based on legislative omission cannot be cured by…

  • H E T H Mabaso v The Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Minister for Justice and Constitutional DevelopmentCase CCT 76/03, decided on 5 October 2004
    Cites

    Cited for the test of when an appellate court may interfere with the exercise of a discretion by a lower court.

  • Hoffmann v South African AirwaysCase CCT 17/00 (decided 28 September 2000); reported as 2001 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2000 (11) BCLR 1211 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the interpretation of appropriate relief as requiring just and equitable orders under section 172(1)(b).

  • Homelink (Private) Limited v Clever MaputseniJudgment No. SC 4/22; Civil Appeal No. SC 393/20
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the controversy must be existing or live and not purely hypothetical.

  • IGS Consulting Engineers CC and Another v Transnet SOC Limited(198/2020) [2022] ZASCA 63 (29 April 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the general rule that courts will not hear matters where there is no live issue or decide matters of academic interest.

  • Irene Lorna Lawrence v Lorna Van HuysteenCA 95/2024 (High Court of South Africa, Eastern Cape Division, Makhanda)
    Cites

    Cited for the definition of mootness as when a case no longer presents an existing or live controversy and would result in advisory opinions on abstract…

  • Izak Gerhardus Jacobus van Aswegen v Die StaatSaaknr: 327/2000
    Cites

    The court cites Dzukuda in support of an accused's right to present further evidence in mitigation when referred to the regional court for sentencing.

  • Jacobus Bogaards v The State(CCT 120/11) [2012] ZACC 23
    Applies

    Applied to explain that fairness lies at the heart of a fair trial and that the High Court must ensure that accused receive a fair trial.

  • Jaftha v Schoeman and Others; Van Rooyen v Stoltz and OthersCCT 74/03, decided 8 October 2004
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that where a matter can be decided without reaching the constitutional issues, it is best to do so.

  • J and B v Director General: Department of Home Affairs and OthersCCT 46/02; 2003 (5) SA 621 (CC); 2003 (5) BCLR 463 (CC)
    Follows

    Applied the approach adopted by Ackermann J for reading in words to cure constitutional invalidity, and for principles on legislative intrusion and relief…

  • Johncom Media Investments Limited v M and Others(CCT 08/08) [2009] ZACC 5
    Applies

    Applied for the explanation of how the balancing exercise in assessing whether a limitation is justified must be conducted, requiring consideration of both the…

  • 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