CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Association of Regional Magistrates of South Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others
Case CCT 91/12 Date of hearing: 19 February 2013
________________________________________________________________________
MEDIA SUMMARY
________________________________________________________________________
The following explanatory note is provided to assist the media in reporting this case and is not binding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.
On 19 February 2013 at 10h00 the Constitutional Court will hear an application for confirmation and variation of an order of constitutional invalidity and a conditional application for leave to appeal against a decision of the North Gauteng High Court (High Court) by the Association of Regional Magistrates of South Africa (ARMSA).
On 26 November 2010 the President published a decision to increase the remuneration of regional magistrates and regional court presidents by 5% with effect from 1 April 2010.
This is based on a recommendation from the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers (Remuneration Commission) for a 7% increase.
ARMSA applied to the High Court to review and set aside the decision of the President.
ARMSA contended that the decision by the President (i) was a reduction in remuneration; (ii) was procedurally unfair; (iii) adopted a “one size fits all” approach in relation to the various public office bearers; and (iv) was unreasonable and irrational because it failed to take into account relevant considerations. ARMSA sought to have the matter remitted to the President for reconsideration subject to an invitation for representations from regional magistrates and regional court presidents.
The High Court granted part of the relief sought by ARMSA. It held that the President’s decision was not administrative action but was reviewable under the principle of legality.
The High Court upheld only one ground in relation to the “one size fits all approach”.
ARMSA applies to the Constitutional Court for confirmation and variation of the High Court order. It also applies for leave to appeal against part of the High Court’s order. It argues that the matter raises a clear constitutional issue, there are reasonable prospects of success and it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal to this Court directly.
The Remuneration Commission opposes the application on the ground that the President’s decision is not conduct of the President according to the Constitution. It seeks leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order of the High Court.
