Government appeals High Court ruling on "irrational" regulations

Jamie McKane

MyBroadband Journalist
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
7,000
Government appeals High Court ruling on "irrational" regulations

The South African government will appeal the ruling by the Gauteng High Court which declared South Africa's level 3 and level 4 lockdown regulations irrational and unconstitutional.

Speaking at a post-cabinet media briefing, Minister in the Presidency Jackson Mthembu said that Cabinet had decided to appeal the ruling made by Judge Norman Davis on 2 June 2020.
 

garyc

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
2,996
Cyril said the public was free to take matters to court. However, he did not say that the government would care about what the people say in court.
 

Urist

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
3,598
At the end of the day all that matters is who's got the guns.
 

Sl8er

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
8,708
Government appeals High Court ruling on "irrational" regulations

tenor.gif
 

FNfal

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
6,312
Just a question which court will hear this appeal , the high court ?
 

Azg

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
3,205
Typical response from head state of any tyrannical regime.

That's exactly where SA sits now.
Whether you agree with the government or not, what is tyrannical about appealing a ruling that has gone against you? Strange.
 

TEXTILE GUY

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
12,487
After obtaining legal advice and listening to numerous comments made by members of the legal fraternity in reaction to this judgement, we are of the view that another court might come to another conclusion on the matter,” Mthembu said.

As opposed to accepting the judges advice and listening to the people whose rights are affected .....

Gotcha .... POS.
 

TEXTILE GUY

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
12,487
Whether you agree with the government or not, what is tyrannical about appealing a ruling that has gone against you? Strange.
I dont think it strange at all.

The essence of the judgement is that our constitutional rights were infringed upon due to irrational rules.
The respondent agreed by saying the means justifies the end.

The respondent COULD have agreed with (listened to) the ruling being guided by their constituents and the legal opinion of the judge. Instead, they chose listen to other lawyers to try to come to a different outcome .... ie the lock down is NOT irrational and / or our rights were not infringed upon .....

The alternate sounds pretty nasty. The respondent is exercising his power in a cruel or arbitrary way.
Oddly enough, this fits the definition of tyrannical .....
 

Azg

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
3,205
I dont think it strange at all.

The essence of the judgement is that our constitutional rights were infringed upon due to irrational rules.
The respondent agreed by saying the means justifies the end.

The respondent COULD have agreed with (listened to) the ruling being guided by their constituents and the legal opinion of the judge. Instead, they chose listen to other lawyers to try to come to a different outcome .... ie the lock down is NOT irrational and / or our rights were not infringed upon .....

The alternate sounds pretty nasty. The respondent is exercising his power in a cruel or arbitrary way.
Oddly enough, this fits the definition of tyrannical .....
That is for the appeal court to decide. How does the appeal process work? Once again there is nothing tyrannical about appealing a judgement.
 

Enzo Matrix

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
10,799
I dont think it strange at all.

The essence of the judgement is that our constitutional rights were infringed upon due to irrational rules.
The respondent agreed by saying the means justifies the end.

The respondent COULD have agreed with (listened to) the ruling being guided by their constituents and the legal opinion of the judge. Instead, they chose listen to other lawyers to try to come to a different outcome .... ie the lock down is NOT irrational and / or our rights were not infringed upon .....

The alternate sounds pretty nasty. The respondent is exercising his power in a cruel or arbitrary way.
Oddly enough, this fits the definition of tyrannical .....
Are you ok?
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
28,347
This is no surprise. Wasn't it a personal costs order against NDZ?
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
18,088
This is no surprise. Wasn't it a personal costs order against NDZ?

AFAIK it was a costs order against the government. Personal costs orders are very rare, and only apply in blatant cases of misconduct (see PP). You call call NDZ incompetent and many other things, but she has not crossed that line (yet).
 

krycor

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
18,206
It’s gonna be overturned.. at best people can hope for is a clarification of which things need to be “adjusted” or justified but I suspect the entire thing will just be dropped.

Ironic that the judge made a mistake like that..
 
Top