Minister of posts and telegraphs v rasool

The judgment, authored by Justice Albie Sachs and delivered on 1 Decembergave Parliament one year to pass the necessary legislation. As a result, the Civil Union Act came into force on 30 Novembermaking South Africa the fifth country in the world to recognise same-sex marriage. In the Fourie case, the applicants' counsel was instructed by the State Attorney, and the respondents' by M. The third amicus curiae was instructed by Motla Conradie.

Minister of posts and telegraphs v rasool

After being acknowledged by their friends as a couple for more than a decade, they decided that the time had come to get public recognition and registration of their relationship, and formally to embrace the rights and responsibilities they felt should flow from and attach to it.

Like many persons in their situation, they wanted to get married.

There was one impediment. They are both women.

Minister of posts and telegraphs v rasool

Their complaint has been that the law excludes them from publicly celebrating their love and commitment to each other in marriage. Far from enabling them to regularise their union, it shuts them out, unfairly and unconstitutionally, they claim.

This, as contended for in the second case, [4] is where the further level of exclusion operates. The Marriage Act provides that a minister of religion who is designated as a marriage officer may follow the marriage formula usually observed by the religion concerned.

The reference to wife or husband is said to exclude same-sex couples. It was not disputed by any of the parties that neither the common law nor statute provide for any legal mechanism in terms of which Ms Fourie and Ms Bonthuys and other same-sex couples could marry.

Section 9 1 of the Constitution now reads: And if it does, what is the appropriate remedy that this Court should order?

Minister of posts and telegraphs v rasool

They asked for an order declaring that the law recognises their right to marry, and a mandamus ordering the Minister of Home Affairs and the Director-General to register their marriage in terms of the Marriage Act.

The applicants articulated the issue as follows: Consequently the applicants could not be married as required by the law.

An omission to challenge the constitutionality of the provisions of the Marriage Act accordingly constituted an obstacle to granting the relief sought. On this basis he dismissed the application. Roux J having in the interim retired, the application was heard by Mynhardt J, who refused to grant a positive certificate, but [9] did grant them leave to appeal to the SCA.

Let the world know that women were once not 'persons' in the eyes of the law | Opinion | M&G

The applicants then approached the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal directly to it against the judgment and order of the High Court. Moseneke J [10] said that in their papers the applicants did not seek a declaration that any of the provisions of the legislation dealing with solemnising or recording of marriages was inconsistent with the Constitution, or if any was, what the appropriate relief would be in that regard.

The applicants also omitted to address all the consequences that would flow from the recognition of such a union or how it should be dissolved. The appeal was likely to raise complex and important questions of the legal conformity of our common law and statutory rules of marriage in the light of our Constitution and its resultant jurisprudence.

Moreover marriage touches on many other aspects of law, including labour law, insurance and tax. These issues are of importance not only to the applicants and the gay and lesbian community but also to society at large. The judgment emphasised that the views of the SCA on the matters that arose were of considerable importance.

The nature of the dispute raised by the appeal was, as the High Court had correctly held in issuing a negative rule 18 2 certificate, pre-eminently suited to be considered first by the SCA. The application for leave to appeal directly to this Court was accordingly refused.

When racial segregation regarding the use of counters at post offices came up for judicial determination in Minister of Posts and Telegraphs v. Rasool, Chief Justice James Stratford held that the. DIAU v. BOTSWANA BUILDING SOCIETY (2) BLR (IC) Citation: (2) BLR (IC Minister of Posts and Telegraphs v. Rasool AD National Development Bank v. Thothe [] B.L.R. 98, CA Wholesale Department Store Union, Local et al v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd () 33 DLR (4th) (SCC) C Sakal Papers v. Union of India AIR. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs v Rasool AD Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Another; Bissett and Others v Buffalo City Municipality and Others; Transfer Rights Action Campaign and Others v MEC, Local Government and Housing, Gauteng, and Others (KwaZulu-Natal Law Society and Msunduzi Municipality as Amici Curiae) (1) SA (CC) ( (2) BCLR .

Two separate judgments were delivered. All five judges held that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the common law definition of marriage constituted unfair discrimination against them.

The reasons for coming to this conclusion diverged in certain significant respects, however, resulting in different approaches being taken as to the order to be made. It also provides that when developing the common law the Court must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.

Doing so is not a choice. Where the common law is deficient, the courts are under a general obligation to develop it appropriately. This provided the background to the task in the appeal.At the time when Brown v.

Board of Education 1 was before the United States Supreme Court, and the doctrine of "separate but 2 Minister of Posts & Telegraphs v. Rasool, [] App. Div. [A.D.] 3Act No. 49 of 4Id. § 2.

2005 in LGBT history

5Id. § 3(b). [VoL CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN SOUTH AFRICA. In Minister of Posts and Telegraphs v. Rasool, AD , the Appellate Division, with one very strong dissent, upheld such a doctrine when the Postmaster-General in the Transvaal divided post offices into sections for “Europeans” and “non-Europeans”.

In Minister of Posts and Telegraphs v. Rasool, AD , the Appellate Division, with one very strong dissent, upheld such a doctrine when the Postmaster-General in the Transvaal divided post offices into sections for “Europeans” and “non-Europeans”. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Irish: Aire Poist agus Telegrafa) was the holder of a position in the Government of Ireland (and, earlier, in the Executive Council of the Irish Free State).

When racial segregation regarding the use of counters at post offices came up for judicial determination in Minister of Posts and Telegraphs v. Rasool, Chief Justice James Stratford held that the.

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [] ZACC 19,, is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in which the court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to metin2sell.com judgment, authored by Justice Albie Sachs and delivered on 1 December.

Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core