![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg/640px-Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg&w=640&q=50)
SATAWU v Garvas
South African legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Another v Garvas and Others, the Constitutional Court of South Africa dismissed a constitutional challenge to section 11 of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993. The relevant provisions of the act widen the circumstances in which persons can be held liable for riot damage incurred during public gatherings which they have organised. The Constitutional Court conceded that these provisions created a chilling effect, thereby limiting the constitutional right to freedom of assembly, but it held that this rights limitation is reasonable and justifiable.
SATAWU v Garvas | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
Full case name | South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Another v Garvas and Others |
Decided | 13 June 2012 (2012-06-13) |
Docket nos. | CCT 112/11 |
Citations | [2012] ZACC 13; 2012 (8) BCLR 840 (CC); [2012] 10 BLLR 959 (CC); (2012) 33 ILJ 1593 (CC); 2013 (1) SA 83 (CC) |
Case history | |
Prior actions | Supreme Court of Appeal – SATAWU v Garvis and Others [2011] ZASCA 152 High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division – Garvis and Others v SATAWU [2010] ZAWCHC 175 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Mogoeng CJ, Yacoob ADCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, van der Westhuizen J, Maya AJ and Zondo AJ |
Case opinions | |
Section 11(2) of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 is consistent with section 17 of the Constitution. | |
Decision by |
|
Concurrence |
|
Keywords | |
|
The case arose from a May 2006 protest march in Cape Town, organised by the South African Transport and Allied Workers' Union, which turned violent and resulted in significant property damage. The Constitutional Court handed down judgment on 13 June 2012, with Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng writing for the majority.