National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judgment Date: 08 December 2016
• Citation: 2017 (1) SACR 284 (CC)

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others
2017 (1) SACR 284 (CC)

2017 (1) SACR p284

Citation	2017 (1) SACR 284 (CC)
Case No	CCT 1/16; [2016] ZACC 46
Court	Constitutional Court
Judge	Nkabinde ADCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J, Musi AJ and Zondo J
Heard	August 23, 2016
Judgment	December 8, 2016
Counsel	K Hopkins, S Freese and L Nkoana for the applicant.; LM Moloisane SC (with D Mtsweni) for the respondents.; S Budlender (with G Motaung) for the amicus curiae.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

C Animal — Cruel ill-treatment — Prosecution of — Power of NSPCA to institute private prosecution.

Headnote : Kopnota

The appellant appealed against decisions in the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA), that held that it did not have the right to instigate a private prosecution against persons accused of violations of animal-cruelty D legislation. The SCA held that the differentiation between natural persons and juristic persons in s 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the CPA) — in respect of the power to institute private prosecutions and the policy of limiting private prosecutions to certain kinds of case — could not be faulted, and accordingly dismissed the appellant's challenge to the constitutionality of that section. It further concluded that, read together, s 8 [*] of E the CPA and s 6(2)(e) of the Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 169 of 1993 (the SPCA Act) (which permitted the NSPCA to 'institute legal proceedings connected with its functions') did not grant the applicant the right to institute a private prosecution. On appeal,

Held, that on a plain textual reading, the term 'institute legal proceedings' in s 6(2)(e) could include the power to privately prosecute. The language used F in the provision was broad and permissive and did not distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings. There was nothing in the text itself that excluded that power. (Paragraph [36] at 298e–f.)

Held, further, that since the applicant was explicitly charged with upholding the statutes in the animal-protection regime and preventing animal cruelty, the term 'institute legal proceedings connected with its functions' had to be G interpreted to encompass prosecutions of animal cruelty. Functionally, the applicant was best placed to conduct a private prosecution and give effect to preventing and enforcing the offences set out in the aforesaid regime. To understand the SPCA Act as conferring this power, was to give effect to the objects and purposes of the regime. Importantly, it gave effect to the applicant's primary purpose to protect animal welfare. To read s 6(2)(e) as H excluding the right of private prosecution would render the regime a toothless tiger. (Paragraphs [46]–[48] at 302b–f.)

It was declared that the applicant had the statutory power of private prosecution conferred upon it by s 6(2)(e) of the SPCA Act read with s 8 of the CPA. (Paragraph [65] at 308d–f.)

Annotations:

Cases cited

Reported cases

Southern Africa I

Alexkor Ltd and Another v The Richtersveld Community and Others 2004 (5) SA 460 (CC) (2003 (12) BCLR 1301; [2003] ZACC 18): referred to

2017 (1) SACR p285

Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC) (2007 (7) BCLR 691; A [2007] ZACC 5): referred to

Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC) (2004 (7) BCLR 687; [2004] ZACC 15): dicta in paras [90] – [91] applied

Bertie van Zyl (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister for Safety and Security and Others 2010 (2) SA 181 (CC) (2009 (10) BCLR 978; [2009] ZACC 11): B dicta in para [23] applied

Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies Intervening) 2002 (1) SACR 79 (CC) (2001 (4) SA 938; 2001 (10) BCLR 995; [2001] ZACC 22): referred to

Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Dunn 1928 EDL 184: dictum in para [195] applied C

CUSA v Tao Ying Metal Industries and Others 2009 (2) SA 204 (CC) (2009 (1) BCLR 1; [2009] 1 BLLR 1; (2008) 29 ILJ 2461; [2008] ZACC 15): considered

Dage Properties (Pty) Ltd v General Chemical Corporation Ltd and Another 1973 (1) SA 163 (A): dictum at 174B – D applied D

Daniels v Campbell NO and Others 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC) (2004 (7) BCLR 735; [2004] ZACC 14): dicta in paras [43] – [44] applied

Department of Land Affairs and Others v Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits (Pty) Ltd 2007 (6) SA 199 (CC) (2007 (10) BCLR 1027; [2007] ZACC 12): referred to

Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, and Others E 2009 (2) SACR 130 (CC) (2009 (4) SA 222; 2009 (7) BCLR 637; [2009] ZACC 8): referred to

Electoral Commission v Mhlope and Others 2016 (5) SA 1 (CC) (2016 (8) BCLR 987; [2016] ZACC 15): dictum in para [83] applied

Ex parte The Minister of Justice: In re Rex v Jacobson & Levy 1931 AD 466: dictum at 477 applied

Ex parte The Minister of Justice: In re Rex v Masow and Another 1940 AD 75: F referred to

Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC) (1996 (1) BCLR 1; [1995] ZACC 13): referred to

Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC) (1997 (7) BCLR 851; [1997] ZACC 6): referred to G

Fraser v Absa Bank Ltd (National Director of Public Prosecutions as Amicus Curiae) 2007 (3) SA 484 (CC) (2007 (3) BCLR 219; [2006] ZACC 24): dictum in para [43] applied

Head of Department: Mpumalanga Department of Education and Another v Hoërskool Ermelo and Another 2010 (2) SA 415 (CC) (2010 (3) BCLR 177; [2009] ZACC 32): dictum in para [97] applied H

Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences and Others v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd: In re Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Smit NO and Others 2000 (2) SACR 349 (CC) (2001 (1) SA 545; 2000 (10) BCLR 1079; [2000] ZACC 12): dictum in para [23] applied

KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee v MEC for Education, KwaZulu-Natal and Others I 2013 (4) SA 262 (CC) (2013 (6) BCLR 615; [2013] ZACC 10): referred to

Mankayi v AngloGold Ashanti Ltd 2011 (3) SA 237 (CC) (2011 (5) BCLR 453; [2011] ZACC 3): dicta in para [120] applied

Mansingh v General Council of the Bar and Others 2014 (2) SA 26 (CC) (2014 (1) BCLR 85; [2013] ZACC 40): referred to J

2017 (1) SACR p286

Matatiele Municipality and Others v President of the RSA and Others 2006 (5) SA 47 (CC) (2006 (5) BCLR 622; [2006] ZACC 2): referred to A

Minister for Safety and Security v Van der Merwe and Others 2011 (5) SA 61 (CC); (2011 (9) BCLR 961; [2011] ZACC 19): dictum in para [59] applied

National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Openshaw B 2008 (5) SA 339 (SCA) ([2008] ZASCA 78): referred to

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another [2014] ZAGPPHC 763: overruled

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another 2016 (1) SACR 308 (SCA) ([2015] ZASCA 206): overruled

Paddock Motors (Pty) Ltd v Igesund 1976 (3) SA 16 (A) ([1976] 3 All SA 332): referred to C

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA and Another: In re Ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC) (2000 (3) BCLR 241; [2000] ZACC 1): dicta in paras [46] and [51] applied

Phillips and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions 2006 (1) SACR 78 (CC) (2006 (1) SA 505; 2006 (2) BCLR 274; [2005] ZACC 15): referred to D

Premier, Limpopo Province v Speaker of the Limpopo Provincial Government and Others 2011 (6) SA 396 (CC) (2011 (11) BCLR 1181; [2011] ZACC 25): dictum in para [34] applied

Prince v President, Cape Law Society, and Others 2001 (1) SACR 217 (CC) (2001 (2) SA 388; 2001 (2) BCLR 133; [2000] ZACC 28): referred to E

Prinsloo v Van der Linde and Another 1997 (3) SA 1012 (CC) (1997 (6) BCLR 759; [1997] ZACC 5): referred to

R v Moato 1947 (1) SA 490 (O): referred to

R v Smit 1929 TPD 397: referred to F

S v Boesak 2001 (1) SACR 1 (CC) (2001 (1) SA 912; 2001 (1) BCLR 36; [2000] ZACC 25): dictum in para [14] applied

S v Edmunds 1968 (2) PH H398 (N): referred to

S v Lemthongthai 2015 (1) SACR 353 (SCA) ([2014] ZASCA 131): referred to

S v Shaik 2008 (1) SACR 1 (CC) (2008 (2) SA 208; 2007 (12) BCLR 1360; [2007] ZACC 19): dictum in para [83] applied G

S v Zuma and Others 1995 (1) SACR 568 (CC) (1995 (2) SA 642; 1995 (4) BCLR 401; [1995] ZACC 1): referred to

SATAWU and Another v Garvas and Others 2013 (1) SA 83 (CC) (2012 (8) BCLR 840; [2012] ZACC 13): referred to

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Standerton v Nel and Others 1988 (4) SA 42 (W): referred to H

South African Predator Breeders Association and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism [2009] ZAFSHC 68: referred to

South African Predator Breeders Association and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism I [2011] 2 All SA 529 (SCA) ([2010] ZASCA 151): referred to

Tshwane City v Link Africa and Others 2015 (6) SA 440 (CC) (2015 (11) BCLR 1265; [2015] ZACC 29): dicta in para [33] applied

Youngleson Investments (Pty) Ltd v South Coast Regional Rent Board and Another; Graham Properties Ltd v South Coast Regional Rent Board and Another J 1971 (1) SA 405 (A): dictum at 418G – H applied

2017 (1) SACR p287

Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei and Others 1995 (4) SA 615 (CC) (1995 (10) BCLR 1424; A [1995] ZACC 9): referred to.

Canada

Borowski v Canada (Attorney General) [1989] 1 SCR 342: referred to.

United States

Liverpool, New York and Philadelphia Steamship Co v Commissioners of Emigration B 113 US 33 (1885) (28 1 Ed 899; [1885] USSC 11): referred to.

Legislation cited

The Criminal Procedure Act 51 of...