Graaff-Reinet Municipality v Van Ryneveld's Pass Irrigation Board

Last updated

Graaff-Reinet Municipality v Van Ryneveld's Pass Irrigation Board [1] is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on March 6, 1950, with judgment handed down on March 21. The judges were Watermeyer CJ, Centlivres JA, Schreiner JA, Van Den Heever JA, and Murray AJA. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Steyn J and Searle J. The appellant's attorneys were Herold, Gie & Broadhead, Cape Town, and McIntyre & Watkeys, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Mostert & Bosman, Cape Town, and Reitz, Barry & Berning, Bloemfontein.

Contents

The case concerned a claim or dispute as to water rights conferred in an agreement. The court considered whether it could act under section 102 of the General Law Amendment Act, [2] and when a declaration of rights could be granted.

The case is still frequently cited [3] for its definition of "jurisdiction" as "the power or competence of a Court to hear and determine an issue between parties, and limitations may be put upon such power in relation to territory, subject matter, amount in dispute, parties etc." [4]

Arguments

Appellant

AJ Smit, KC, argued that the subject-matter of the application was not a claim nor a dispute with regard to the right to use water. Even if the issues involved a dispute about the use of water, section 34 of the Irrigation Act [5] did not, in his view, oust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters where there was only a claim for a declaration of rights and no claim for consequential relief. The Municipality could claim no consequential relief at the moment, he contended, since there was no infringement, at least not yet, of any right. In an application like the present one, for a declaration of rights without claiming relief, brought before the introduction of section 102 of the General Law Amendment Act, neither the Water Court nor the Supreme Court would have had jurisdiction in the matter. At common law, Smit continued, the Supreme Court did not have it, [6] and the Water Court did not have it, since it was a creature of statute. The fact that it was only given the same right as the Supreme Court by the Magistrates' Courts Act, [7] passed in 1944, showed that it did not have it previously. [8] This meant, Smit claimed, that sections 32(a) and (b) did not include the right which was given in section 32(b)(bis) by section 5 of the Magistrates' Courts Act. Section 34, therefore, could not be said to cover such a right. With section 102 of the General Law Amendment Act, the Legislature had conferred jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to grant a declaration of rights where no consequential relief was claimed. This section, he observed, did not restrict its jurisdiction and did not exclude rights relating to water; nor did section 34 of the Irrigation Act at that time oust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

In 1944, the Water Court was granted powers similar to those contained in section 102 of the General Law Amendment Act. [9]

Respondent

NJ Grobler, KC, noted that it was clear that the dispute was one as to water rights, and argued that from this it followed that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court had been ousted by the provisions of section 34 of the Irrigation Act. The fact that the declaration of rights claimed did not include a claim for consequential relief was irrelevant, in Grobler's view. He observed that section 34 covered a claim such as the present one. Even, he continued, if the dispute could properly be regarded as one in regard to the manner in which admitted rights were to be exercised, it would, in this case, nevertheless amount to a dispute or claim as to water rights.

The dicta in De Wet v Deetlefs , [10] which might, perhaps, be read to express a contrary view, were too widely stated for Grobler's liking, and did not apply, he argued, to a case such as the present; in any event, De Wet was clearly distinguishable from the present case. [11]

Judgment

Watermeyer CJ found—and Centlivres JA, Schreiner JA, Van Den Heever JA and Murray AJA concurred—that section 102 of the General Law Amendment Act does not authorise the Supreme Court to hear and determine a claim or dispute as to water rights which has not reached the stage of actionable maturity: that is, the stage at which an infringement of the legal rights of one of the parties, which gives the other party a right to claim consequential relief, has taken place. The decision of the Cape Provincial Division, in Graaff-Reinet Municipality v van Ryneveld's Pass Irrigation Board, [12] was thus confirmed.

See also

Related Research Articles

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. A similar, stronger rule as regards foreign courts is named state immunity.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights, civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Often considered as one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 Piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country. It is also "one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history."

The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), were a group of five landmark cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not empower Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals. The holding that the 13th amendment did not empower the federal government to punish racist acts done by private citizens would be overturned by the Supreme Court in the 1968 case Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.. The 14th amendment not applying to private entities, however, is still valid precedent to this day. While the decision holding for the 14th amendment has never been overturned, in the 1964 case of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, the Supreme Court held that Congress could prohibit racial discrimination by private actors under the Commerce Clause, though that and other loose interpretations of the Clause to expand federal power have been subject to criticism.

Tribal sovereignty in the United States Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States. Originally, the U.S. federal government recognized American Indian tribes as independent nations, and came to policy agreements with them via treaties. As the U.S. accelerated its westward expansion, internal political pressure grew for "Indian removal", but the pace of treaty-making grew nevertheless. Then the Civil War forged the U.S. into a more centralized and nationalistic country, fueling a "full bore assault on tribal culture and institutions", and pressure for Native Americans to assimilate. In the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871, without any input from Native Americans, Congress prohibited any future treaties. This move was steadfastly opposed by Native Americans. Currently, the U.S. recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and uses its own legal system to define the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments.

The court system of Canada forms the judicial branch of government, formally known as "The Queen on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

Constitutional Court of South Africa Apex court in South Africa

The Constitutional Court of South Africa is a supreme constitutional court established by the Constitution of South Africa, and is the apex court in the South African judicial system, with general jurisdiction.

High Court of New Zealand Court in New Zealand

The High Court of New Zealand is the superior court of New Zealand. It has general jurisdiction and responsibility, under the Senior Courts Act 2016, as well as the High Court Rules 2016, for the administration of justice throughout New Zealand. There are 18 High Court locations throughout New Zealand, plus one stand-alone registry.

<i>Weber v Ontario Hydro</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Weber v Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court held that a labour arbitration board was a "court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 24(1) of the Charter, and could grant declarations and damages. Consequently, the board has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and so employees cannot bring suits concerning matters under a collective agreement to court.

Federal Court of Australia Australian superior federal court

The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court of record which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law, along with some summary criminal matters. Cases are heard at first instance by single judges. The court includes an appeal division referred to as the Full Court comprising three judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the supreme courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other courts in the federal stream, it is equal to the Family Court of Australia, and superior to the Federal Circuit Court. It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States extensively refined the abstention doctrine to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts.

Supreme court Highest court in a jurisdiction

A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia, formerly known as the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia or the Federal Magistrates Service, was an Australian court with jurisdiction over matters broadly relating to family law and child support, administrative law, admiralty law, bankruptcy, copyright, human rights, industrial law, migration, privacy and trade practices.

Arbitration Method of dispute resolution

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way to resolve disputes outside the judiciary courts. The dispute will be decided by one or more persons, which renders the 'arbitration award'. An arbitration decision or award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts, unless all parties stipulate that the arbitration process and decision are non-binding.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international human rights, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. In 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 (2008), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Sections 319(a) and (b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 unconstitutionally infringed on a candidate's First Amendment rights.

Sovereign immunity in the United States Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

<i>Taylor v Attorney-General</i>

Taylor v Attorney-General[2015] NZHC 1706 is a New Zealand High Court judgment which made a formal declaration that a statute that prohibited prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The action was brought by Arthur Taylor, a high-profile prison inmate. This was the first time a court had recognised that a formal declaration of inconsistency is an available remedy for statutory breaches of the Bill of Rights. Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act states, "Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In his decision, Justice Heath declared that the Electoral Amendment Act 2010 which stripped all voting rights in general elections from prisoners was an unjustified limitation on the right to vote contained in s 12 of the Bill of Rights. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision after the Attorney-General appealed the jurisdiction of the courts to make declarations of inconsistency.

Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States When cases are heard without going through lower courts

The Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction in a small class of cases described in Article III, section 2, of the United States Constitution and further delineated by statute.

References

Books

Case law

Legislation

Notes

  1. ↑ 1950 (2) SA 420 (A).
  2. ↑ Act 46 of 1935.
  3. ↑ See, for example, Peté, et al, p. 35.
  4. ↑ 424.
  5. ↑ Act 8 of 1912.
  6. ↑ See Geldenhuys & Neethling v Beuthin 1918 AD at 439-41.
  7. ↑ 30 of 1944, s 5.
  8. ↑ See Van Heerden and Others v Smit 1915 CPD 181.
  9. ↑ See Magistrates' Courts Act, s 5.
  10. ↑ 1928 AD 293.
  11. ↑ See Hough v Steenkamp 1946 CPD at 448-9; Tweedegeluk Eiendoms Beperk v Howes and Others 1949 (3) SALR 1220; Calitz v Lyle 1928 CPD at 549; MacGregor and Others v Beckenstrater 1949 (2) SALR 137.
  12. ↑ 1949 (3), SALR 859
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.