THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT
Case no: 007/11
SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION

Appellant
and
JACQUELINE GARVIS

First Respondent
THURAYA NAIDOO

Second Respondent
CHINATOWN (RSA) INTERNATIONAL TRADING CC

Third Respondent
ANEES SOEKER

Fourth Respondent
ANDREWS NJIOKWUEMEGI

Fifth Respondent
DOLORES ROSANNE REITZ

Sixth Respondent
MAURICE ROBERTSON

Seventh Respondent
HAROLD BURGER

Eighth Respondent
MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY

Ninth Respondent
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Neutral citation: South African Transport & Allied Workers Union v Garvis & others (007/11) [2011] ZASCA 152
(27 September 2011)
CORAM:
Navsa, Brand, Van Heerden, Mhlantla JJA and Plasket AJA
HEARD:
5 September 2011
DELIVERED:
27 September 2011
SUMMARY:
Constitutional validity of s 11(2)(b) of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 ─ protest march
organised by Trade Union degenerating into riot ─ damage caused to property ─ persons affected sued Trade Union in
terms of s 11 of the Act ─ high court called upon to decide the separated question of the constitutional validity of s 11(2)(b)
─ Trade Union contending that right to freedom of assembly and protest entrenched in s 17 of the Constitution infringed
by the creation of statutory liability without providing a viable defence ─ submitted that holding organisations that
organised assemblies and marches liable would have a chilling effect ─ high court correct in concluding that s 17 of the
Constitution not implicated ─ assemblies that were peaceful and in which participants were unarmed were protected ─
held that s 11(2)(b) was not internally contradictory and provided viable defences to organisers ─ organising a march
preceded by many deaths and increasing animosities might in itself lead to liability ─ Evidence presented in the court
below indicated that notwithstanding the existence of s 11 gatherings continuing to be a feature of South African life and
that there was no chilling effect ─ warning by court about being subjected to mob rule.
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

ORDER
______________________________________________________________________

On appeal from:
Western Cape High Court (Cape Town) (Hlophe JP sitting as court
of first instance):
The appeal is dismissed and no order is made as to costs.
______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________

NAVSA JA (Brand, Van Heerden, Mhlantla JJA and Plasket AJA concurring)

[1] On Tuesday morning 16 May 2006 the appellant, the South African Transport
and Allied Workers’ Union (the Union), arranged and organised a protest march, which
constituted a gathering as defined in the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 (the
Act). The march in the Cape Town City Bowl arose out of a protracted strike in the
security sector by members of the Union. As the march proceeded, in the Union’s own
words, it   ‘descended into chaos’, with admitted extensive damage caused to vehicles
and shops along the route.

[2] The first to eighth respondents are individuals who claimed that they had
sustained loss as a result of the riot. At least one of the respondents claims to have
been assaulted. They all instituted action in the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town,
against the Union in terms of s 11 of the Act, alternatively under the common law, to
recover the damages they had allegedly sustained and for which they contended the
Union was liable. Section 11(1) of the Act creates a statutory liability on the part of
organisations under whose auspices a gathering or demonstration was held that
degenerated into a riot causing damage to others.1

1 Section 11(1) provides:
‘If any riot damage occurs as a result of-

[3] Section 11(2) of the Act sets out three factors that a defendant to such an action
has to prove in order to escape liability. Section 11(2) reads as follows:
‘It shall be a defence to a claim against a person or organization contemplated in subsection (1) if such a
person or organization proves ─
(a) that he or it did not permit or connive at the act or omission which caused the damage in question; and
(b) that the act or omission in question did not fall within the scope of the objectives of the gathering or
demonstration in question and was not reasonably foreseeable; and
(c) that he or it took all reasonable steps within his or its power to prevent the act or omission in question:
Provided that proof that he or it forbade an act of the kind in question shall not by itself be regarded as
sufficient proof that he or it took all reasonable steps to prevent the act in question.’ (My emphasis.)

[4] In defending the action the Union, in addition to denying liability in general terms,
also contended that s 11(2)(b), particularly the part highlighted above, places too great
a burden on trade unions and other organisations and individuals who intended to
assemble to protest publicly. It was submitted that it has a stultifying effect on the rights
set out in s 17 of the Constitution:
‘Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and present
petitions.’

[5] Put differently, it was contended that, faced with the onerous task of proving what
is required by s 11(2)(b), unions, other organisations and individuals would be deterred
from organising marches, protests and other gatherings for fear of financial ruin. Thus, it
was contended that s 11(2)(b) was unconstitutional in that it offended against the right
entrenched in s 17 of the Constitution in terms of which everyone has the right
‘peacefully and unarmed’, to assemble,  demonstrate,  picket and to present petitions.

(a) a gathering, every organization on behalf of or under the auspices of which that gathering was held,
or, if not so held, the convener;
(b) a demonstration, every person participating in such demonstration,
shall, subject to subsection (2), be jointly and severally liable for that riot damage as a joint wrongdoer
contemplated in Chapter II of the Apportionment of Damages Act, 1956 (Act 34 of 1956), together with
any other person who unlawfully caused or contributed to such riot damage and any other organisation or
person who is liable therefor in terms of this subsection.’

[6] In the paragraphs that follow, I turn to consider the allegations by the
respondents about the riot as experienced by them and the resultant damage allegedly
sustained by them. The allegations in relation to the first, second and sixth respondents
that appear in those paragraphs are drawn from affidavits filed by them, after an order
by the court below in terms of which the issue of the constitutionality of s 11(2)(b) was,
in terms of Uniform rule 33(4), to be heard prior to and separately from the other issues
in the case,2 and from their particulars of claim. The assertions by the third, fourth, fifth,
seventh and eight respondents are drawn from their particulars of claim.

[7] The first respondent, Ms Jacqueline Garvis, alleged that at the time of the riot
she was a street vendor selling items such as travel bags, school bags, wallets, etc at a
location just outside Grand Central. She described how, on the morning in question, a
group of marchers pushed through a gate to the market where her stall was located.
One of the persons in the group used a pole with which he smashed her stall. Parts of
the crowd looted her stall and robbed her of all her stock. She was struck on her body
with a pole and was traumatised by the events. She alleged that the replacement value
of the goods lost by her was R3 805.

[8] The second respondent, Ms Thuraya Naidoo, is a flower seller who does
business on the pavement alongside Adderley Street, near the intersection with Darling
Street, in the centre of Cape Town. She alleges that she was aware that the Union had
organised a march for the 16 May 2006. On that day she was going about her business
as usual when, at approximately 11h30, a huge crowd approached and a group of
marchers trampled her flowers. She was terrified as she witnessed her business and
stock being destroyed. According to Ms Naidoo it took her months to pay off her debt to
the person who supplies the flowers she sells in her business. She alleged that the
replacement value of the flowers lost by her is R6 687.50.

2 The court below, in ordering the separation, granted leave to any party wishing to adduce evidence in
relation to the constitutional point to do so by filing affidavits.

[9] The sixth respondent, Ms Dolores Reitz, recalls that on that morning she was in
her car at a set of traffic lights in Darling Street. At the time, she was a manager of a
photographic shop in the Strand Concourse and was on the way back there from a
goods supplier. Suddenly, she was surrounded by a group of marchers who smashed
her car with sticks and their fists. The car was consequently badly damaged and she
was terrified. In her particulars of claim she alleged that she had suffered damages in
the amount of R5 584.71.

[10] The fourth respondent, Mr Anees Soeker, is a carpenter who claimed that his
motor vehicle was vandalised during the march, causing him to sustain damages in an
amount of R17 043.53.

[11] The fifth respondent, Mr Andrew Njiokwuemegi, a customs clearance officer, also
alleged that his car was vandalised during the march, causing him to sustain damages
in an amount of R11 458.23.

[12] The seventh respondent, Mr Maurice Robertson, a businessman, claimed that he
had his motor vehicle vandalised during the march and that he sustained damages in an
amount of R5 864.25.

[13] Finally, the eighth respondent, Mr Harold Burger, who is self-employed, stated
that his motor vehicle was vandalised by marchers and that he consequently sustained
damages in an amount of R18 599.15.

[14] In an affidavit filed in the proceedings in the court below subsequent to the order
in terms of Uniform rule 33(4), Mr B J Engelbrecht Botha, who is employed as legal
advisor to the Speaker of the City of Cape Town, stated that in the riot following on the
march, participants began breaking windows, damaging cars and looting stores,
causing damage estimated to be in the region of R1.5 million. Most of the damage was
done to motor vehicles. According to him, several people were injured and about 39

people were arrested. In this regard he referred to a newspaper report. This part of his
affidavit was uncontested.

[15] In opposing the action the Union also served a third party notice on the Minister
of Safety and Security (the Minister), claiming in the attached annexure, that in the
event of it being held liable to any or all of the respondents it was entitled to a
contribution from him. The Union alleged that the losses suffered by the respondents
were caused, at least in part, by the negligent conduct of members of the South African
Police Service. They were said to be negligent in the following respects:
(a)
they failed to ensure that adequate numbers of police officers were on hand to
man the Cape Town railway station at the time that the Union’s members arrived from
their various departure points;
(b)
they failed to ensure that adequate numbers of police officers were on hand to
monitor the gathering and to prevent damage being caused to third parties;
(c)
they failed to ensure that the police officers on duty at the gathering were
adequately equipped to deal properly with the marchers who participated in the
gathering;
(d)
they fired rubber bullets at those participating in the gathering, thereby causing
the gathering to become disrupted and unmanageable by the Union’s marshals;
(e)
they failed to disarm persons in unlawful possession of traditional and/or
dangerous weapons;
(f)
the armoured police vehicle at the head of the march moved unduly slowly,
thereby disrupting the progress of Union members towards Parliament, thereby causing
frustration; and
(g)
they failed to take all steps reasonably necessary to protect the property of third
parties.

[16] In addition to denying liability on any basis the Union, in a conditional
counterclaim, sought an order declaring that s 11(2)(b) is unconstitutional and sought
the excision of what it contended were the offending parts.

[17] The Minister entered the litigation fray, denying that he was liable on the basis
contended for on behalf of the Union. The Minister pleaded that members of the South
African Police Service had taken all reasonable measures to regulate and manage the
gathering. Furthermore, it was alleged on behalf of the Minister that the Police Service
had consulted with the Union prior to the gathering and ascertained such facts as were
necessary, including the anticipated number of participants. Based on this an
operational plan was devised by the police to determine how best to regulate and
monitor the gathering. The plan was put into operation and it included an adequate
number of police to deal with the gathering. The Minister denied that members fired
rubber bullets unreasonably or unnecessarily. He alleged that the armoured vehicles
that were deployed were used to regulate and control the gathering.

[18] Although it was initially indicated on behalf of the Minister that he would abide the
high court’s decision he was represented during the hearing of the matter in the court
below and argument was presented on his behalf. The Minister made common cause
with the other respondents in contending that s 11(2)(b) was not unconstitutional.

[19] The separated issue was heard by Hlophe JP and was decided against the
Union with the following order being made:
‘(a)
It is declared that the inclusion of the words “and was not reasonably foreseeable” in section
11(2)(b) of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 is not inconsistent with section 17 of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
(b)
No order as to costs.’
The present appeal is before us with leave to appeal having been granted by the
learned Judge President.

[20] In deciding the matter the court below had regard to the volatile environment in
which the march was organised. This was information gleaned from the affidavit of the
Union’s Provincial Secretary. According to him the strike in the security sector of
industry leading up to the march in question took place in the context of heightened
acrimony arising out of issues between Union members and employers and
Government. By the time the march took place, approximately 50 people had already

been killed in strike-related violence. It is uncontested, as recorded by the court below,
that preceding the march there had been previous instances of damage caused to
property belonging to the city and private persons.

[21] The court below noted that the Act had come into operation on 15 November
1996. It recorded that preceding legislation had made no provision for civil liability on
the part of organisers or conveners of gatherings.

[22] Before focusing on the specifics of the constitutional challenge by the Union,
Hlophe JP embarked on a careful examination of the procedure created by the Act for
the organisation and notification of an intended gathering. The Act provides for
consultations and negotiations in relation to gatherings.  Section 2 states that any
organisation or branch of an organisation intending to hold a gathering ‘shall appoint . . .
a person to be responsible for the arrangements for that gathering and to be present
thereat, to give notice in terms of section 3 and to act on its behalf at any consultations
or negotiations contemplated in section 4, or in connection with any other procedure
contemplated in this Act.’ Section 2 also contemplates a deputy to be appointed to the
person referred to in the preceding sentence. Section 2(2)(a) provides that the
Commissioner of police or a person authorised thereto by him shall authorise a suitably
qualified and experienced member of the police to represent the police at consultations
or negotiations contemplated in section 4. It obliges the Commissioner to notify all local
authorities or any local authority concerned of every such authorisation and of the
name, rank and address of such authorised member.

[23] Section 2(4)(a) of the Act makes provision for a responsible officer to be
appointed by the local authority with whom the organisers can liaise and whom they are
obliged to notify concerning the identity and particulars of an intended gathering.
Section 3 obliges the convener of a gathering to give formal notice thereof to the
responsible officer of the local authority. Section 3(3) of the Act sets out the extensive
information that has to be provided by the convener, including the anticipated number of

participants and where possible the number and names of marshals to be appointed
and how these marshals are to be distinguished from the other participants.

[24] Section 4 obliges the responsible officer of the local authority concerned to
consult with the authorised member of the police about the necessity for negotiations
concerning any aspect of the conduct of, or any condition with regard to the proposed
gathering. Section 4(2)(b) envisages a subsequent meeting involving the convener, the
responsible officer and the police to reach agreement on the conduct, organisation and
control of the gathering. In the event of a failure to reach agreement the Act empowers
the responsible officer to impose conditions in relation to the intended gathering.
Section 5 of the Act sets out circumstances in which the responsible officer of the local
authority may prohibit a meeting. Section 8 of the Act determines the conduct of the
convener, marshals and participants in the gathering. It includes the appointment of a
number of marshals. It requires steps to be taken to ensure orderly and peaceful
conduct.

[25] Section 9 sets out the powers of the police in relation to a gathering, including the
power to regulate vehicular and pedestrian flow. It also deals with the use of force by
the police to control a gathering.

[26] That background leads us to s 11 which, as set out above, forms the statutory
basis for a claim against organisations or individuals who organise a gathering that
turns into a riot causing damage to others, whilst at the same time setting out a basis for
avoiding liability.

[27] In dealing with the submissions on behalf of the Union, that s 11(2)(b) is
unconstitutional, Hlophe JP had regard to the evidence presented by the Union and the
common cause facts. All the material steps required to be taken in terms of the Act had
been met by the Union. The Union had approximately 500 marshals in attendance and
appears to have communicated to their members on an ongoing basis that they were to

desist from unlawful behaviour. They had requested the local authority to clear the
roads of vehicles and to erect barricades.

[28] On the strength of what is set out above it was submitted that the Union had
taken all reasonable steps to prevent any harm being caused to the public. It was
accepted on behalf of the Union that in the extensive planning contemplated in the Act
that precedes a gathering, the potential for a breakdown of order is discussed and thus
inevitably, harm being foreseen enters the equation. Thus it was submitted that it was
almost impossible for an organisation such as the Union to avoid liability in terms of the
provisions of the Act. Put differently, the Union and like organisations as well as
individuals who convened a gathering would be unable to satisfy the requirements for a
valid defence in terms of s 11(2) of the Act because the foreseeability of harm in the
planning stages potentially lands it with liability at source.

[29] The court below rejected the submission that s 11(2)(b) offended against s 17 of
the Constitution, which expressly states that one has a right to assemble, demonstrate,
picket and to present petitions ‘peacefully and unarmed’. This right, the court below held
does not extend to unlawful behaviour at gatherings or where persons bear weapons. It
was on that basis that the submission was held to be groundless.

[30] The court below went on to consider the submission on behalf of the Union about
the chilling effect of s 11(2)(b), namely, that if allowed to stand, it would lead to the end
of public assembly and protest. In this regard the court below found it telling that
notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, with the spectre of looming liability, the Union
nevertheless proceeded with the gathering. The court below also had regard to the
affidavit deposed to by the local authority’s responsible officer that he frequently warns
organisers of gatherings of the dangers of liability as envisaged in the Act but that his
experience is that it has no deterrent effect. Hlophe JP also considered against the
Union, the affidavit of Colonel Cloete, the Minister’s senior legal adviser, to similar
effect. Both deponents stated the indications are to the contrary, that the right to public
assembly and protest is frequently being exercised and that this is promoted by the

overall scheme of the Act and not impeded by s 11(2). Importantly, there was no
evidence to the contrary presented by the Union.

[31] The court below dealt with the further submission on behalf of the Union that
s 11(2) of the Act was internally self-destructive and therefore incoherent. It was
contended that this was so because, in all relevant circumstances where the defendant
discharged its duty of taking all reasonable steps within its power to prevent the act or
omission in question, the act or the omission will always be reasonably foreseeable in
terms of s 11(2)(b). It was submitted that it was not logically possible to take reasonable
steps to prevent an act from occurring if one does not foresee the possibility of such an
act occurring. Thus it was submitted that the defence contained in s 11(2) is illusory and
inherently doomed to failure. Before us it is this latter argument that became the focal
point of the argument on behalf of the Union.

Conclusions

[32] It is necessary to record at the outset that counsel on behalf of the Union
accepted that, if it were held that s 11(2)(b) was intelligible, could be given content, and
afforded a real defence to a statutory claim,  then it would not be necessary for this
court to proceed, as the court below did, to the limitation exercise provided for in s 36 of
the Constitution.3 This means it was accepted that, whatever the difference between
liability in terms of s 11 of the Act and liability at common law, the difference would be
constitutionally valid provided that this court found s 11(2)(b) of the Act to have the
qualities referred to in the preceding sentence. Put differently, counsel for the Union
conceded that if s 11(2) provides a viable defence, it constitutes a reasonable and
justifiable limitation in terms of s 36 of the Constitution.

3 Section 36 recognises that fundamental rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application
to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on
human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors including:
‘(a) the nature of the right;
(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
(c) the nature and extent of the limitation;
(d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
(e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.’

[33] At common law the test for negligence leading to liability finds its clearest
statement in Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A) at 430E-F. Liability ensues if:
‘(a)
a diligens paterfamilias in the position of the defendant ─
(i)
would foresee the reasonable possibility of his conduct injuring another in his person or property
and causing him patrimonial loss; and
(ii)
would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and
(b)
the defendant failed to take such steps.’

[34] In Neethling, Potgieter and Visser Law of Delict 5ed (2006) p 118 the learned
authors correctly state the following:
‘Whether a diligens paterfamilias in the position of the person concerned would take any guarding steps
at all and, if so, what steps would be reasonable, must always depend on the particular circumstances of
each case. No hard and fast basis can be laid down.’

[35] Apart from being couched in the negative, because it relates to the setting up of a
defence, I have some difficulty in understanding why the provisions of s 11(2)(b), set out
in para 3 above, differ radically or even significantly  from the common law requirements
for liability for negligence. In this regard I discount questions of whether or not an
unjustifiable reverse onus has been imposed on defendants since this aspect was not
pursued before us. As stated above, the appeal was limited to questioning the viability
of a defence in terms of s 11(2)(b). This involves considering whether the subsection is
intelligible and whether it can be applied to the advantage of potential defendants.

[36] Furthermore, I fail to see why the statutory defence is illusory and why defences
ordinarily available at common law are excluded by the provisions in question. A
number of examples prove that point. Take the case of the gathering of thousands of
trade union members with hundreds of marshals in attendance and where steps were
taken to ensure that no-one was armed, there was collaboration with the police about
the route of a protest march and all such eventualities as occurred to both the police
and the trade union organisers were taken into account in the planning. That
notwithstanding, a riot ensued because one of the policemen in attendance had not

engaged the safety catch on his weapon, causing it to discharge as he moved alongside
the crowd, with the consequence that participants panicked and stampeded. In those
circumstances an innocent bystander seeking to hold the trade union liable for damages
would probably fail at the first hurdle. That eventuality could hardly have been foreseen
by the Union and if any liability attaches it would attach to the police.

[37] Consider the case of a gathering, where exactly the same precautions as set out
in the preceding paragraph were taken, but where the march was suddenly and
unexpectedly infiltrated by a gunman unconnected to the trade union, who bore a
grudge against society and who started firing indiscriminately, causing panic. Once
again this would not have been an action that was reasonably foreseeable and the trade
union faced with a claim for damages by a shopkeeper whose shop in the vicinity of the
march was damaged would probably be able to mount a successful defence.

[38] Another imagined instance is one where, despite barricades having been agreed
and erected by police and despite marshals and the police taking precautions to ensure
a free-flow of marchers through the streets and to prevent incursions by vehicular traffic,
a motorist nonetheless breaks through those barricades and drives into the marching
crowd causing panic and a riot with resultant damage to persons and property. I fail to
see how in those circumstances the trade union could be held liable.

[39] In all three instances it would have been clear that the actions following upon the
unforeseen events did not form part of the purpose of the gathering and it would have
been equally clear that the Union did not permit or connive in the actions that caused
the panic that led to loss being sustained by others. Furthermore, the Union would have
taken all reasonable steps to ensure that a stampede or unruly behaviour did not occur.

[40] It was submitted that the conjunctive nature of the provisions of s 11(2)(b)
relating to a defendant was especially pernicious, because at common law all a
defendant needed to show to escape liability, when sued in a delictual action based on
negligence, was that a reasonable person in his or her position would not have foreseen

the reasonable possibility of his or her conduct injuring another in their person or
property, causing damage to be sustained. The absence of that factor alone would
usually mean that a defendant would escape liability. The plaintiff, on the other hand,
would have had to meet the Kruger v Coetzee test set out in para 33 above in its
entirety.

[41] Even though the conjunctive nature of the defence set out in s 11(2)(b) of the
Act, on the face of it, seems burdensome one can only take reasonable steps in respect
of conduct that is reasonably foreseeable. It does appear that unless the act complained
of ─ leading to the riot ─ was reasonably foreseeable, a defendant would probably in all
of the instances set out above escape liability. One can only take steps to guard against
an occurrence if one can foresee it.

[42] As stated above, it was submitted on behalf of the Union that when an intended
gathering takes place where there is a threat of violence, it is inevitable that the content
of the discussions between the police and organisers deals with the potential for injury
to persons or damage and that therefore it will always unjustifiably be contended
against organisations such as unions that, because they foresaw that eventuality, they
should be held liable. It was contended that it was akin to strict liability being imposed
on organisations which organise gatherings.

[43] In the present case, according to the testimony of the Union’s own
representative, events leading up to the march had led to a volatile situation. The strike
had been protracted and acrimonious and there had been many deaths. In those
circumstances it is arguable that no degree of measures could be taken so as to
prevent the march from degenerating into a riot. Even at common law it would appear
that a defendant who persisted in organising a march in those circumstances would
almost inevitably be landed with liability. Put differently, if one persists in organising an
event where it is reasonably foreseeable that no measure or means could be employed
to prevent it from degenerating into a riot, then when that eventuality occurs one could
hardly be expected to escape liability for the harm caused to persons or property. In

short, a reasonable trade union would not persist in organising and proceeding with a
march in the circumstances sketched in this paragraph.

[44] Furthermore, it might well be that the separated question in terms of Uniform
rule 33(4) was premature in that the reasons for the gathering degenerating into a riot
had not yet factually been established. Having the question of the constitutionality of
s 11(2)(b) tested in a vacuum was undesirable. What, if at a trial in due course, it is
established that some Union marshals were instrumental in the gathering turning into a
riot? What if the evidence establishes that some Union officials made inflammatory
speeches preceding the march, and that this had the effect of causing a riot? In those
circumstances the provisions of the Act or the application of common law principles
would almost inevitably mean the Union would be held liable for damages sustained by
innocent third parties. Could it rightfully be said that in those circumstances the ensuing
statutory liability offended against constitutional values and norms? I think not. It is
arguable that, in the circumstances set out above, common law liability would attach to
the Union and the exploration of the constitutional point would be unnecessary. What if
the factor that caused the riot was wholly unconnected to the march and could not have
been foreseen by any one of the actors envisaged by the Act? In those circumstances
one can hardly imagine that liability could attach to the Union either statutorily or at
common law.

[45] The reasons for the riot ought to be properly explored by the trial court in due
course. This court has repeatedly warned that piecemeal litigation is not to be
encouraged. Sometimes parties consider issues to be discrete and submit that a
decision on a separated issue would lead to an expeditious disposal of the litigation, but
that submission and agreement on separation often turns out to be ill-advised. In this
regard see Denel (Edms) Bpk v Vorster 2004 (4) SA 481 (SCA) para 3 and
Consolidated News Agencies (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) v Mobile Telephone Networks
(Pty) Ltd & another 2010 (3) SA 382 (SCA) paras 89 and 90. The Constitutional Court
has commented on the undesirability of matters being referred to it where facts are in

dispute.4 It has also commented on the difficulties of dealing with complex questions of
law, constitutional or otherwise, and being called upon to engage in the limitation
exercise, presently provided for in s 36 of the Constitution, as a court of first instance.
The Constitutional Court has stated that it should not be called upon to do so in
circumstances in which a decision on the constitutional issue might not be decisive for
the case.5 Be that as it may, we are called upon to consider whether the court below,
with the material available to it was correct in its ultimate conclusion.

[46] During the pre-constitutional era public protests and demonstrations against a
denial of fundamental human rights were often met by brute force with resultant loss of
life. The Sharpeville massacre and the 1976 Soweto student uprising are stark
examples that are etched into the national psyche. In any event, the legislature, after an
extensive consultative process, and following on the brutal experiences of the Apartheid
era, promulgated the Act.6

[47] Our Constitution saw South Africa making a clean break with the past. The
Constitution is focused on ensuring human dignity, the achievement of equality and the
advancement of human rights and freedoms. It is calculated to ensure accountability,
responsiveness and openness.7 Public demonstrations and marches are a regular
feature of present day South Africa. I accept that assemblies, pickets, marches and
demonstrations are an essential feature of a democratic society and that they are
essential instruments of dialogue in society. The Constitutional Court has recognised
that the rights presently enjoyed by employees were hard-won and followed years of

4 Van der Spuy v General Council of the Bar of South Africa (Minister of Justice and Constitutional
Development, Advocates for Transformation and Law Society of South Africa Intervening) 2002 (5) SA
392 (CC).
5 S v Bequinot 1997 (2) SA 887 (CC) para 15.
6 The history leading up to the promulgation of the Act, dealing in particular with the Goldstone
Commission of Inquiry regarding the Prevention of Public Violence and Intimidation are set out in
Woolman, Roux, Klaaren, Stein, Chaskalson and Bishop Constitutional Law of South Africa (2ed) vol 3,
pp 43-4 to 43-7. Save to state that the Goldstone Commission convened a multinational panel of experts
to thrash out a new approach to public assembly it is for present purposes not necessary to recount that
history. From the report of the Commission it is clear that it conducted hearings with interested persons,
including the South African Police, political parties and the Congress of South African Trade Unions ─
para 5.2 of the report.
7 The founding values of our Constitution are set out in ss 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

intense and often grim struggle by workers and their organisations.8 The struggle for
workers’ rights can rightly be expected to continue. Trade unions should ensure that a
noble struggle remains unsullied. The Act was designed to ensure that public protests
and demonstrations are confined within legally recognised limits with due regard for the
rights of others.

[48] I agree with the court below that the rights set out in s 17 of the Constitution,
namely, the right to assemble and demonstrate, are not implicated because persons
engaging in those activities have the right to do so only if they are peaceful and
unarmed. It is that kind of demonstration and assembly that is protected. Causing and
participating in riots are the antithesis of constitutional values. Liability in terms of s 11
follows on the unlawful behaviour of those participating in a march. The court below
rightly had regard to similar wording in the Constitution of the United States, where
people are given the right to assemble peacefully. Such provisions in constitutions such
as ours are deliberate. They preclude challenges to statutes that restrict unlawful
behaviour in relation to gatherings and demonstrations that impinge on the rights of
others.9

[49] It was submitted on behalf of the Union that damage to public property caused by
a gathering that degenerated into a riot was a small price to pay to preserve and protect
the precious right to public assembly and protest, which is integral to a democratic state.
I agree with the court below that members of the public are entitled to protection against
behaviour that militates against the rule of law and the rights of others and that, if
liability is to attach to unlawful behaviour at a gathering that causes a riot, it would seem
just and in accordance with constitutional values that it should attach to the organisers
in the circumstances contemplated in s 11 of the Act. As stated above the Union’s legal
representatives therefore rightly accepted that if s 11(2)(b) could be given content, as

8 Sidumo & another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & others 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC) para 74.
9 See Iain Currie & Johan de Waal The Bill of Rights Handbook 5 ed (2005) p 405-407 and Woolman
Roux Klaaren Stein Chaskalson Bishop Constitutional Law of South Africa (2ed) vol 3 pp 43-19 to 43-20
where German jurisprudence is discussed. See also Fourways Mall (Pty) Ltd & another v South African
Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union & another 1999 (3) SA 752 (W) where it was held that
neither s 17 of the Constitution nor the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 countenance assaults and other
forms of conduct that infringed upon the rights of the general public.

described above, it would not be necessary for us to proceed to the limitation exercise
contemplated in s 36 of the Constitution. For the reasons set out above I do not find the
provisions of s 11(2)(b) internally contradictory and self-destructive. It appears to me to
be structured in such a manner as to ensure that liability should attach where it rightly
belongs.

[50] The chilling effect of s 11(2)(b) described on behalf of the Union is not only
unsubstantiated but is contradicted by the police and the City of Cape Town, who
presented unchallenged evidence that in their extensive experience the provisions of
the Act have not deterred people from public assembly and protest. If anything, the
regularity of public assembly and protest in the 15 years of the existence of the Act
proves the contrary. The chilling effect that the provisions of the Act should rightly have
is on unlawful behaviour that threatens the fabric of civilised society and which
undermines the rule of law. In the past the majority of the population was subjected to
the tyranny of the state. We cannot now be subjected to the tyranny of the mob.

[51] Before us it was submitted on behalf of the Union that the provisions of the Act
were too wide and presented the spectre of limitless liability for organisers of
gatherings. It was submitted that organisers might be liable even for conduct that strictly
speaking was not unlawful. In this regard we were referred to the definition of ‘riot
damage’ in the Act which:
‘. . . means any loss suffered as a result of any injury to or the death of any person, or any damage to or
destruction of any property, caused directly or indirectly by, and immediately before, during or after, the
holding of a gathering.’
It was contended that definition was overly wide and that liability would ensue even in
the absence of fault.

[52] The submission referred to in the preceding paragraph is fallacious. The
definition cannot be read without considering the ordinary meaning of the word ‘riot’
which is: ‘a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd’.10 The entire scheme of the Act,

10 Concise Oxford Dictionary 10 ed revised (2002).

including s 11, is designed to prevent unlawful violent behaviour that impinges on the
rights of others and to ensure that persons or organisations which organise assemblies
that degenerate into riots should bear liability.

[53] For all the reasons set out above, the appeal must fail. Because of the
constitutional issue raised there should, like in the court below, be no order as to costs.

[54] The appeal is dismissed and no order is made as to costs.

_________________
M S NAVSA
JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES:

For Appellant:

E Fagan SC

S Miller

Instructed by

Bernadt Vukic Potash & Getz Cape Town

Lovius-Block Bloemfontein

For 1st - 8th Respondents: A Katz SC

D Cooke

Instructed by

Fairbridges Cape Town

McIntyre & Van Der Post Bloemfontein

For 9th respondent:
K Pillay

Instructed by

The State Attorney Cape Town

The State Attorney Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:
27 September 2011
Status:
Immediate
Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the
media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of
Appeal

On 27 September 2011 the Supreme Court of Appeal handed down judgment in
South African Transport & Allied Workers Union v Garvis & others, dismissing an
appeal against an order of the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town, in terms of
which it declared that s 11(2)(b) of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 was
not inconsistent with s 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.  Section
17 provides that everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to
demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions.

Section 11 of the Regulation of Gatherings Act provides that if any riot damage
occurs as a result of a gathering, every organisation on behalf of or under the
auspices of which that gathering was held, shall be jointly and severally liable for
that riot damage, as a joint wrongdoer together with any other person who unlawfully
caused or contributed to such riot damage. Section 11(2) of the Act contains the
provision challenged by the appellant, the South African Transport and Allied
Workers’ Union. This section provides that it shall be a defence to a claim if an
organisation organising a gathering proves that it did not commit or connive at the
act or omission which caused the damage, and that the act or omission did not fall
within the scope of the objectives of the gathering and was not reasonably

foreseeable; and that it took all reasonable steps within its power to prevent the act
or omission.

In defending an action brought by, amongst others, a hawker and a flower seller,
eking out a living in the Cape Town city centre, for loss they sustained during a
protest march by the Union as a result of violent behaviour by participants, the Union
submitted that too great a burden was placed on trade unions and other
organisations by s 11(2)(b) of the Act and that, faced with extensive statutory liability
for riot damage, they would be deterred from organising marches, protests and other
gatherings for fear of financial ruin. Put simply, it was submitted that the statutory
liability, coupled with the onerous task of establishing a defence in terms of s 11(2)
of the Act, would have a chilling effect on public demonstrations and that the latter
subsection was consequently unconstitutional.

That submission was rejected by Hlophe JP in the court below. He had regard to the
evidence presented by the Union and the common cause facts and held that the
right to public protest and demonstration entrenched in s 17 of the Constitution was
not implicated because the right to assemble, demonstrate and picket did not protect
unlawful behaviour at gatherings. The court below had regard to evidence presented
on behalf of the police and the local authority that notwithstanding the provisions of
s 11(2)(b), gatherings were frequently held. In short, the Act had no deterrent effect.

The court below also rejected the submission that s 11(2) of the Act, and particularly
s 11(2)(b), was internally self-destructive and incoherent. It had been submitted on
behalf of the Union that, where a trade union or like organisation took reasonable
steps to prevent acts leading to riot damage, the resultant behaviour complained of
would always be reasonably foreseeable and organisations would inevitably be
landed with liability. It was submitted that the defence provided for in s 11(2)(b) was
illusory.

The SCA agreed that the rights set out in s 17 of the Constitution were not
implicated and that only peaceful demonstrations were protected. It held that
causing and participating in riots are the antithesis of constitutional values. The
wording of s 17 is deliberate. It precludes challenges to statutes that restrict unlawful

behaviour in relation to gatherings and demonstrations that impinge on the rights of
others.

It was submitted on behalf of the Union that damage caused by participants in a
gathering was a small price to pay to protect the precious right to public assembly
and protest.

The SCA accepted that assemblies, pickets, marches and demonstrations are
essential instruments of dialogue in society. It held, however, that the struggle for
workers’ rights should take place within legal limits and with due regard to the rights
of others. This court agreed with the court below that the chilling effect of s 11(2)(b)
described on behalf of the Union, was not only unsubstantiated but was contradicted
by the City of Cape Town and the police. The SCA stated that in the past the
majority of the population was subjected to the tyranny of the State and that
historical events such as the Sharpeville massacre and the Soweto student uprising
were imprinted on the national psyche. We should not now be subjected to the
tyranny of the mob.

This court rejected the notion that the relevant provisions of the Act raised a spectre
of limitless liability for organisers of gatherings. It rejected the argument that the
defence provided for in s 11(2)(b) was illusory and set out a number of examples
that proved the opposite. It held that s 11(2)(b) was not inherently contradictory and
self-destructive and consequently dismissed the appeal. Because of the
constitutional challenge no order was made as to costs.