Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
Interpreting the role of judicial review on executive policy decisions : the case of United Democratic Movement v Eskom
Dissertation (LLM (Constitutional Law))--University of Pretoria, 2024.
Saved in:
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Pretoria
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867613464660279296 |
|---|---|
| access_status_str | Open Access |
| author2 | Radebe, Martha Keneilwe |
| author_browse | Radebe, Martha Keneilwe |
| author_facet | Radebe, Martha Keneilwe |
| collection | Thesis |
| dc_rights_str_mv | © 2023 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria. |
| description | Dissertation (LLM (Constitutional Law))--University of Pretoria, 2024. |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oai:repository.up.ac.za:2263/101128 |
| institution | University of Pretoria (South Africa) |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2026-06-10T12:36:34.044Z |
| license_str | Other — see source repository |
| provenance_str_mv | Harvested via OAI-PMH from UPSpace — University of Pretoria Institutional Repository |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publishDateRange | 2025 |
| publishDateSort | 2025 |
| publisher | University of Pretoria |
| publisherStr | University of Pretoria |
| record_format | dspace |
| source_str | UPSpace — University of Pretoria Institutional Repository |
| spelling | oai:repository.up.ac.za:2263/101128 Interpreting the role of judicial review on executive policy decisions : the case of United Democratic Movement v Eskom Radebe, Martha Keneilwe moshoeshoe.monare@gmail.com Monare, Nkgakga Moshoeshoe UCTD Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Separation of powers Judicial review Policy-formulation Constitutional court Independent judiciary Executive authority Fundamental rights Dissertation (LLM (Constitutional Law))--University of Pretoria, 2024. The South African Constitution, 1996, provides for the separation of powers among the three branches of government (the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary) without definitive contours that define the demarcation features of the doctrine. While each branch is obliged to realise and protect the Bill of Rights, the Constitution equally created obligations for each branch to carry out its duties effectively without unconstitutional restriction. This is a constitutional mechanism that sustains and fuels democracy. Section 85(2)(b) of the Constitution accords the executive branch the power to formulate and develop policy without subjecting such policy to constitutional judicial review unless the policy is inconsistent with the Constitution or violates fundamental rights. Section 172(1) obligates the courts to declare “any law or conduct that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid to the extent of its inconsistency”. This means that nothing is beyond the scrutiny of the courts. Section 2 also elevates and affirms the supremacy of the Constitution in that any “law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.” The courts are therefore permitted to intervene when the policy, the formulation of which is the province of the executive, is inconsistent with the Constitution. Where the policy does not offend the Constitution, the courts are barred from unconstitutional intrusion into the terrain of the other branches. However, the challenge arises in determining whether a policy is inconsistent with the Constitution, thus allowing the courts to constitutionally interfere with the executive’s policy-formulation function. This research examined whether the North Gauteng High Court acted in line with the separation of powers doctrine when it ordered the executive not to load-shed certain public institutions, declaring such conduct as a violation of fundamental rights. The research used the case of United Democratic Movement v Eskom to illustrate that even if a policy appears to be poorly formulated and unpopular, it is not up to the courts to intervene. Rather, it is up to the voters to force policy changes through political and electoral processes. Such judicial intervention, in the absence of constitutional grounds, is an unmandated intrusion. The research recommended judicial caution and restraint when the courts are faced with policymaking cases with budgetary and resource-allocation implications. The research outlines the critical importance of the separation of powers as a doctrinal hygiene of the Constitution to ensure effective, accountable government and the rule of law. The research posits that there must be clear fundamental rights violation and unconstitutionality to warrant judicial intervention in the executive’s policy functions. Public Law LLM (Constitutional Law) Unrestricted Faculty of Laws SDG-16: Peace, justice and strong institutions 2025-02-21T09:00:24Z 2025-02-21T09:00:24Z 2025-04 2024-09 Dissertation * A2025 http://hdl.handle.net/2263/101128 DISLPAY MY LETTER en © 2023 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria. application/pdf University of Pretoria |
| spellingShingle | UCTD Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Separation of powers Judicial review Policy-formulation Constitutional court Independent judiciary Executive authority Fundamental rights Interpreting the role of judicial review on executive policy decisions : the case of United Democratic Movement v Eskom |
| title | Interpreting the role of judicial review on executive policy decisions : the case of United Democratic Movement v Eskom |
| title_full | Interpreting the role of judicial review on executive policy decisions : the case of United Democratic Movement v Eskom |
| title_fullStr | Interpreting the role of judicial review on executive policy decisions : the case of United Democratic Movement v Eskom |
| title_full_unstemmed | Interpreting the role of judicial review on executive policy decisions : the case of United Democratic Movement v Eskom |
| title_short | Interpreting the role of judicial review on executive policy decisions : the case of United Democratic Movement v Eskom |
| title_sort | interpreting the role of judicial review on executive policy decisions the case of united democratic movement v eskom |
| topic | UCTD Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Separation of powers Judicial review Policy-formulation Constitutional court Independent judiciary Executive authority Fundamental rights |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/2263/101128 |