Case  CCT 150/24
[2026] ZACC 16

Hearing Date:  25 November 2025

 Judgement Date: 22 April 2026

Post Judgment 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 Wednesday, 22 April 2026, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in an application for leave to appeal brought by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) against the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The central issue before the Court was whether the SAHRC has the power to issue binding directives following an investigation into alleged human rights violations.

The matter arose from a complaint lodged with the SAHRC in 2018 by occupiers of Doornhoek farm in Mpumalanga. The occupiers alleged that the respondents, Agro Data CC and Mr Francois Gerhardus Boshoff, had restricted their access to borehole water. The SAHRC conducted an investigation and found that the occupiers’ rights to access to water and dignity had been violated. It issued directives requiring that their access to water be restored, that the parties engage with each other and for the respondents to disclose relevant information to the occupiers to allow for meaningful engagement between the parties. The respondents failed to comply, prompting the SAHRC to approach the High Court to seek an order that its directives were binding.

The SAHRC relied heavily on this Court’s judgment in Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly [2016] ZACC 11 (EFF I), where it was held that remedial action taken by the Public Protector may, at times, have binding effect. The High Court interpreted section 184(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13 of the South African Human Rights Commission Act 40 of 2013 (SAHRC Act), and found that the provisions grant the SAHRC co-operative powers rather than coercive powers. The High Court found that the SAHRC’s powers differ from those of the Public Protector, but this did not mean that the SAHRC’s powers were automatically non-binding. Instead, it held that if the SAHRC’s directives were aimed at securing appropriate redress, they may be binding. The High Court found that the directives issued by the SAHRC in this case pertaining to the provision of information and engagement between the parties were steps taken to secure appropriate redress and were therefore binding.

The SCA dismissed the appeal, finding that the SAHRC had no power to issue binding directives, and that the SAHRC’s role is to assist complainants to seek redress through appropriate fora.

In this Court, the matter was unopposed. Three amici curiae were admitted — the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, Afriforum NPC and ProBono.org. The SAHRC relied on EFF I to argue that decisions taken under constitutional authority must be complied with unless set aside by a court. It contended that the Constitution and SAHRC could be broadly interpreted to mean that its directives were binding.

CALS supported the SAHRC, and argued for a broad interpretation aligned with international law and which promoted effective access to remedies. ProBono.org submitted that the SAHRC’s decisions have legal effect, but accepted that enforcement requires court proceedings. AfriForum opposed both positions, submitting that the SAHRC has no binding powers at all.

In a unanimous decision, this Court found that the matter engaged this Court’s jurisdiction, and the interests of justice favoured granting leave to appeal. On the merits, it found that the wording of section 184(2)(b) and the SAHRC Act, read in context and in light of its purpose and legislative history, did not support an interpretation that the SAHRC has the power to issue binding directives. The powers of the SAHRC were distinguished from those of the Public Protector. The latter is empowered to take “remedial action” which may, at times, be binding, but the SAHRC is limited to “taking steps to secure appropriate redress”. It was held further that interpreting the SAHRC’s powers as non-binding does not undermine its constitutional role. Rather, it remains an important institution that promotes human rights through investigation, advocacy, and facilitating access to justice. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the appeal.

The Full judgment  here