Minister of Law and Order and Another v Argus Printing and Publishing Co Ltd and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

Minister of Law and Order and Another v Argus Printing and Publishing Co Ltd and Another
1990 (1) SA 1058 (A)

1990 (1) SA p1058

Citation	1990 (1) SA 1058 (A)
Court	Appellate Division
Judge	Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Smalberger JA, Vivier JA and F H Grosskopf JA
Heard	November 10, 1989
Judgment	November 28, 1989

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

E Internal security — Emergency regulations made in terms of s 3 of Public Safety Act 3 of 1953 as promulgated in Proc R109 of 12 June 1986 — Order by Commissioner of Police in terms of reg 7(1) published in Government Gazette 10584 of 8 January 1987 imposing censorship on Press — Neither reg 7(1)(b)(ii) nor reg 7(1)(d) empowering Commissioner to make such an order — Because those subregulations so wide in ambit they F rendered redundant other regulations which provided specifically for control of Press — Order of 8 January also ultra vires as it purported to be applicable to whole of country whereas reg 7(1) provided only for operation 'in any particular area' — Semble: Regulation 7(1)(d) also G appeared to be ultra vires.

Headnote : Kopnota

The respondents had applied in a Local Division for an order declaring invalid an order issued by the Commissioner of Police published in Government Gazette 10584 of 8 January 1987, which imposed a form of censorship on the Press. The order was purported to have been made under H reg 7(1) of the security emergency regulations promulgated in Proc R109 of 12 June 1986 in terms of s 3 of the Public Safety Act 3 of 1953. The Court granted the application and declared the order invalid, holding that in terms of reg 7(1)(b)(ii) (on which the Commissioner had relied) the Commissioner was entitled to make orders prohibiting persons from performing certain acts specified in the order 'in any particular area' and by making the order of 8 January applicable to the whole of the country the Commissioner had exceeded the powers granted to him under reg 7(1)(b)(ii). The Court held further that the only other ground on I which the Commissioner might have been justified in making the order, viz reg 7(1)(d), was not open to him as that regulation was itself ultra vires. On appeal against this decision,

Held, that the Court a quo was correct in holding that the words 'any particular area' could not have been intended to have reference to the whole of South Africa and there was much to be said for the view that reg 7(1)(d) was ultra vires.

Held, further, that there was, however, a more fundamental reason why reg 7(1)(b)(ii) or reg 7(1)(d) could not empower an order such as that J of 8 January, viz that were

1990 (1) SA p1059

A those subregulations to be interpreted to cover orders dictating what might be published in the Press, then, bearing in mind their wide and uninhibited language, the provisions of regs 9, 10 and 12, which made specific provision for control of the Press, would pro tanto have been rendered redundant and any limitations or safeguards in the latter regulations would have been overriden by the generality of the powers conferred by regs 7(1)(b)(ii) and 7(1)(d): such an interpretation would consequently have led to glaring absurdity and a result manifestly B contrary to the intention of the Legislature.

Held, accordingly, that there were very cogent grounds for limiting the generality of the language used in reg 7(1)(b)(ii) and reg 7(1)(d) and for confining their application to spheres other than the control of what is published by the Press. Appeal dismissed.

The decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division in Argus Printing and Publishing Co Ltd and Another v Minister of Law and Order and Another C confirmed.

Case Information

Appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division (Daniels J). The facts appear from the judgment of Corbett CJ.

P C van der Byl SC for the appellants referred to the following authorities: Union Government v Principal Immigration Officer 1923 AD 466; Narainsamy v Principal Immigration Officer 1923 AD 673; R v D Comptroller-General of Patents, Ex parte Bayer Products Ltd [1941] 1 All ER 677; R v Beyers 1943 AD 404; R v Scheepers 1943 TPD 122; R v Sachs 1953 (1) SA 392 (A); SA Defence and Aid Fund and Another v Minister of Justice 1967 (1) SA 31 (T); Metal and Allied Workers Union and Another v State President and Others 1986 (4) SA 358 (N); Natal Newspapers (Pty) Ltd and Others v State President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 1986 (4) SA 1109 (N); State President and Others v Tsenoli; E Kerchhoff and Another v Minister of Law and Order and Others 1986 (4) SA 1150 (A); Omar and Others v Minister of Law and Order and Others 1987 (3) SA 859 (A); Staatspresident en Andere v United Democratic Front en 'n Ander (unreported Appellate Division case no 204/87 [*] ); Rabie 'Diskresies en Jurisdiksionele Feite in die Administratiefreg' (1978) F THRHR 419; Botha 'Aliquando Delegatus Delegare Potest' De Jure (April 1980) 339.

J Browde SC (with him G J Marcus) for the respondents referred to the following authorities: Natal Newspapers (Pty) Ltd v State President 1986 (4) SA 1109 (N); African Guarantee and Indemnity Co Ltd v Van Schalkwyk 1956 (1) SA 326 (A); Lendalease Finance (Pty) Ltd v Corporacion De G Mercadeo Agricola 1976 (4) SA 464 (A); Castel NO v Metal & Allied Workers Union 1987 (4) SA 795 (A); State President v Tsenoli 1986 (4) SA 1150 (A); Omar v Minister of Law and Order 1987 (3) SA 859 (A); Staatspresident v United Democratic Front 1988 (4) SA 830 (A); Momoniat v Minister of Law and Order 1986 (2) SA 264 (W); Ismail v Durban City Council 1973 (2) SA 359 (N); Goldberg v Minister of Prisons 1979 (1) SA 14 (A); H Johannesburg Stock Exchange v Witwatersrand Nigel Ltd 1988 (3) SA 132 (A); R v Pretoria Timber Co (Pty) Ltd 1950 (3) SA 163 (A); Kruse v Johnson [1898] 2 QB 91; R v Abdurahman 1950 (3) SA 136 (A); R v Lusu 1953 (2) SA 484 (A); Sinovich v Hercules Municipal Council 1946 AD 783; Baxter Administrative Law at 524; S v Adams 1981 (1) SA 187 (A); Administrator, Transvaal, and The Firs Investments (Pty) Ltd v I Johannesburg City Council 1971 (1) SA 56 (A); Northwest Townships Ltd v The Administrator, Transvaal 1975 (4) SA 1 (T); Publications Control Board v

1990 (1) SA p1060

A William Heinemann Ltd 1965 (4) SA 137 (A); United Democratic Front v Acting Chief Magistrate, Johannesburg 1987 (1) SA 413 (W); United Democratic Front (Western Cape Region) v Van der Westhuizen NO 1987 (4) SA 926 (C); Crawford v Albu 1917 AD 102; R v Roux 1936 AD 271; S v Turrell 1973 (1) SA 248 (C); S v Evans 1982 (4) SA 346 (C); In re Willem B Kok and Nathaniel Bailie 1879 Buch 45; Nkwinti v Commissioner of Police 1986 (2) SA 421 (E); Cabinet for the Interim Government of South West Africa v Bessinger 1989 (1) SA 618 (SWA); S v Mohapi 1984 (1) SA 270 (O); Nathan Brothers v Pietermaritzburg Corporation 1902 NLR 107; Stanton v Johannesburg Municipality 1910 TS 742; Natal Organic Industries (Pty) Ltd v Union Government 1935 NPD 701; Wilson v South C African Railways and Harbours 1946 NPD 755; Arenstein v Durban Corporation 1952 (1) SA 279 (A); R v Dembo 1952 (2) SA 244 (T); R v Sibango 1957 (4) SA 284 (E); R v Wessels 1959 (3) SA 263 (C); R v Ndobe 1930 AD 485; R v Williams 1914 CPD 277; United Democratic Front v The State President 1987 (3) SA 296 (N); Metal and Allied Workers' Union v D State President 1986 (4) SA 358 (D); United Democratic Front v State President (ECD, case No 1074/86, unreported); Ndabeni v Minister of Law and Order 1984 (3) SA 500 (D); S v Melk 1988 (4) SA 561 (A); Benning v Union Government (Minister of Finance) 1914 AD 180; Union Government v Rosenberg (Pty) Ltd 1946 AD 120; Administrateur, Transvaal v E Carletonville Estates Ltd 1959 (3) SA 150 (A); Phillips v Direkteur van Sensus 1959 (3) SA 370 (A); Avex Air (Pty) Ltd v Borough of Vryheid 1973 (1) SA 617 (A); Oranjezicht Estates Ltd v Registrar of Deeds 1924 CPD 237; Moola v Potchefstroom Municipality 1927 TPD 522; Bignaar v Municipal Council of Rustenburg 1927 TPD 615; Dangor v Ermelo Rural G Licensing Board 1927 TPD 795; Vaid v Westville Town Board 1949 (3) SA 37 (N); Golube v Oosthuizen 1955 (3) SA 1 (T); Welkom Village Management Board v Leteno 1958 (1) SA 490 (A); R v Slabbert 1956 (4) SA 18 (T); R v Heyns 1959 (3) SA 634 (A); Mandela v Minister of Prisons 1983 (1) SA 938 (A); E Mureinik 'Fundamental Rights and Delegated Legislation' (1985) 1 South African Journal on Human Rights 111; Attorney-General, Northern Cape v Bruhns 1985 (3) SA 688 (A); Holmes' Executor and Others v Rawbone H and Others 1954 (3) SA 703 (A); Wade Administrative Law 5th ed at 39; Hoffman-La Roche and Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1974] 2 All ER 1128 (HL); Estate Geekie v Union Government 1948 (2) SA 494 (N); Van Eck NO and Van Rensburg NO v Etna Stores 1947 (2) SA 984 (A); Rose-Innes Judicial Review of Administrative Tribunals in South Africa at 127 - 8; Haysom and Plaskett 'The War Against Law: Judicial Activism and the Appellate Division' (1988) 4 South African Journal on Human Rights 303; J Grogan 'The Appellate Division and the Emergency: I Another Step Backward' (1989) 106 SALJ 14; The Master v I L Back and Co Ltd 1981 (4) SA 763 (C); R v Jopp 1949 (4) SA 11 (N); S v Galgut's Garage (Pty) Ltd and Another 1968 (4) SA 725 (T); Coronation Freehold Estates v Municipality of Balfour 1966 (3) SA 724 (T); Brierly v Phillips [1947] 1 KB 541; S v Meer 1981 (1) SA 739 (N); S v Mahlangu 1986 (1) SA 135 (T); Ismail v Local Road Transportation Board 1967 (4) SA 659 (N); S v Ntshiwa 1985 (3) SA 495 (T); S v Ramgobin 1986 (1) SA 68 (N); Mokoena v Minister of Law and Order 1986 (4) SA 42 (W); Tayob v J Ermelo Local Road Transportation Board 1951 (4) SA 440 (A).

1990 (1) SA p1061

A Cur adv vult.

Postea (November 28).

Judgment

Corbett CJ:

This appeal is concerned with the legal validity of an order made by...