Coronavirus (COVID-19) has been a lived reality across the globe for over a year and a half. It has required governments around the world to regulate their citizens’ behaviour in order to curb the spread of the virus.  South Africa implemented its own lockdown regulations in terms of the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 (‘the Act’) in March 2020. These regulations have been amended frequently as government has learnt more about the virus, however there are many regulations which were (and some which still are) regarded as arbitrary and ineffective. This has led to legal challenges to the validity of some of these regulations, including those raised in Esau and Others v Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others (5807/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 56 (“Esau v Minister of COGTA”).

The Applicants in this case were Duwayne Esau and 7 Others, a group of politically motivated individuals who challenged regulations because they believed that the government had erred in its establishment of the National Coronavirus Command Council (“NCCC” or “Command Council”), and that the policy decisions of the NCCC were of no legal force or effect because the NCCC itself was an unconstitutional body. Specifically, the Disaster Regulations issued in terms of section 27(2) of the Act were challenged as unconstitutional and invalid, with an emphasis being placed on the “Directions regarding the sale of clothing, footwear and bedding during alert level 4”.

The Applicants’ allegations were mainly focused on the legality behind the establishment of and the powers given to the NCCC, and the procedural irregularities which took place throughout. They argued that the National Executive had usurped the powers which vest with Parliament when they granted the NCCC the power to implement regulations which affect the rights of South Africans. The Applicants held that the National Disaster Management Centre holds the power to “promote the integrated and co-ordinated system of disaster management, with special emphasis on prevention and mitigation” according to the Act; and that the centre is the primary body established by the Act to manage and coordinate government’s response to disasters. The Applicants reasoning in this allegation is that there already existed a body with the appropriate authority to develop the regulations; and that the establishment of a new body, that lacks legislative framework, renders the existing authority meaningless. This allegation attacked the legality of the NCCC.

They further alleged that the regulations constitute administrative action in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, No. 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”) and as such need to be lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. In this allegation the Applicants focussed on the procedure which was followed in the implementation of the regulations. The Applicants contended that throughout the process, the Minister of COGTA had failed to follow an adequate public participation process. They submitted that the Minister could not have considered all the submissions as there were about 70 000 submissions to be heard in a period of less than two days.

In response to the Applicants’ allegations, the Minister submitted that she did follow adequate public participation processes as she established separate teams to assist her with the processing of the submissions; and that she further had to make the decision to implement a lockdown quickly and decisively and that there was simply not enough time to have extensive public participation processes. To further justify her actions the Minister submitted that she received widespread feedback from the President, Cabinet, the public and other stakeholders once the regulations were published and proceeded to amend them as appropriate.


The Applicants in their final line of attack submitted that:


“Some aspects of the regime, though onerous, may be justified by the legitimate government purposes of limiting the spread of Covid-19, allowing the authorities the necessary time to ensure that South Africa’s health infrastructure is able to cope with a spike in infections and promoting appropriate levels of general health and hygiene. Unfortunately, many other aspects of the regime cannot be justified and bear no rational link to the objective of limiting the spread and lessening the impact of Covid-19.”


The Applicants approached this allegation through the lens of Prinsloo v Van der Linde and Another 1997 (3) SA 1012(CC) (“Prinsloo”). In Prinsloo, the court held that for a decision to be rational in substance [not in procedure] there must be a relationship between the scheme to be adopted and the achievement of a legitimate purpose. Using this case as authority allowed the Applicant to challenge the lockdown regulations themselves and it put the onus on the Respondent to prove that there exists a rational link between the regulation imposed and the achievement of the purpose of limiting the spread of Covid-19.

In their response, the Respondents set out the factors which they considered when developing the regulations in question. They held that there was an urgent need to stop the movement of people; to put in place improved public health care facilities; to provide healthcare workers with adequate personal protective equipment; to bring the seriousness of the pandemic to the attention of the population. The Respondents also submitted that there was consultation with stakeholders and role players in relevant sectors prior to regulations being published and that some regulations were formulated as a direct response to sectors’ submissions.


In the analysis of the allegations and responses made by the parties, the court came to the following conclusions:


  1. That there was no basis for the allegation that the NCCC unlawfully usurped the powers of the Centre. The provisions of the Act do not place the Centre itself as the authority vested with the power to manage disasters exclusively, solely or primarily, but rather the hierarchy of the Act makes it clear that the Centre is subordinate to the Minister and the National Executive. It was clear from Dr Tau’s affidavit (the head of the Centre) that he and the centre were integrally involved in consultations with Cabinet as well as other organs of state, spheres of government and other role players in promoting the integration of disaster management.


  1. That the allegation that the Minister made a procedural error in adhering to the public participation process was unsubstantiated. The dispute of fact was held as not not bona fide as the Applicants did not offer any support for their allegation that the Minister’s version is false.


  1. That the allegation that the regulations themselves were irrational was not supported as the Applicants did not provide a well-reasoned argument as to why each disputed regulation was irrational. The court found that the Respondents sufficiently linked the regulations in question to the purpose of containing the spread of the virus from one area/regions/municipality and province to another so that the health care system in each area can cope with the outbreak it has to contend with. Judge R. Allie had the following to say:

“I am satisfied that the regulations are justified, and it is conceptually not possible to interpret the objectives of protect and relieve; prevent disruption and deal with the effects of a novel global pandemic… in narrower terms than the Respondents have”; and

“I am satisfied that not only is the rational link between the measures and its purpose explained in the answering affidavits of the Ministers of CoGTA and the DTIC as well as the expert affidavit, but it is also self-evident from the content of the regulations themselves, properly construed in its context.”


Accordingly, the court ordered that the application be dismissed, and each party pay their own costs. The Applicants have, however, appealed the decision reached by the High Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal (‘SCA’). This appeal did not lead to any substantial success for the Applicants. The SCA in their conclusion and order found that:

“when the NCCC took a policy decision that was given legal effect by the COGTA Minister, it was legally entitled to do so, and that, in any event, that policy decision was moot and therefore not justiciable; the challenge to the level 4 regulations based on improper purpose was not properly raised; the level 4 regulations were made in a procedurally fair manner, alternatively, they were made in terms of a rational decision-making process; the COGTA Minister applied her mind to the representations that she received from members of the public; the specific movement and economic activity regulations that were challenged were, with two exceptions [emphasis added], reasonable and justifiable limitations of fundamental rights; and the challenge to the clothing directions made by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition was moot [as level 4 was over by this time] and did not, on this account, have to be decided.”


The SCA dismissed the appeal, save for an amendment made to the original order. This amendment stated that two regulations in terms of the level 4 regulations were invalid. Regulation 16(2)(f) was invalid to the extent that it provided a specific form of exercise to be taken at a specific time and that regulation 28(3) was invalid to the extent that it prohibited the sale of hot cooked food. The SCA found that both regulations were not objectively rational.

Esau and Others v Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, even with its limited success, has undoubtedly reminded government of their duty to act reasonably and justifiably. COVID-19 is persisting well into its second year in SA and government will have to implement new regulations as we learn more about the virus. This case provided precedent for measuring the validity of COVID-19 regulations in view of their rationality and proportionality of effect and may be cited in future challenges.


Contact us today for more information.

About the author

Sven is has a passion for both law and people. A graduate of the University of the Free State (LLB), Sven started his articles with Dunsters in 2021. He is fluent in German and previously worked in Munich in sales partner management and compliance. Sven’s areas of interest lie in international trade law and financial compliance.

Outside of the office Sven is a keen adventure seeker and tries to spend most of his time out in nature. When the weather is not playing its part however, you will find Sven enjoying a coffee and listening to a good podcast.

We use cookies to analyse website usage and other technical information to improve the functionality of our website   View more
Cookies settings
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookie name Active
This policy informs you how we will use your personal information, by using our services and/or website you consent to our use of your personal information for the purposes described herein.
    • Personal Information means information relating to an identifiable, living, natural person, and where it is applicable, an identifiable, existing juristic person, including, but not limited to, name and surname; identification number; physical address; contact information such as an email address and telephone number.
    • Data Subject means the person to whom personal information relates.
    • Responsible Party means a public or private body or any other person which, alone or in conjunction with others, determines the purpose of and means for processing personal information.
    • Identification Information means information that can be used to identify the data subject.
    • Compliance Information means information that is needed by Dunsters Attorneys for us to be compliant with relevant laws including the Financial Intelligence Centre Act “FICA” and regulatory standards and government orders such as Anti-Money Laundering (AML), Know-Your-Client (KYC) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CTF).
    • Communication Information includes all correspondence such as emails and messages.
    • Financial information means any information relating to payment of invoices, including but not limited to banking information and account details
  • We may collect website usage and other technical information such as details of your visits to our website through cookies and other tracking technologies. Cookies are small data files stored by your computer to help improve functionality or tailor information to provide visitors with more relevant pages.
  • The information we collect may include information provided to us through your initial correspondence, possibly including:
    • Name and Surname
    • Email address
    • Contact numbers; and/or
  • This may also include information that we may have requested, and you subsequently provided, including, but not limited to:
    • Compliance Information
    • Identification Information
    • Communication Information
    • Financial Information
    • Other Personal Information
  • Reasons for collection of your personal information will be explained to you when we collect/request the information. We may request certain personal information to comply with global industry regulatory standards, local regulatory standards or government orders.
  • You, the data subject, consent to our use of your information in line with this privacy policy and/or any terms of engagement you may sign with us. If you wish to revoke your consent, please email .
  • We acquire information from you directly, save where accessible from publicly available sources.
  • Information may be collected through various platforms, including:
    • Our onboarding process with you
    • Email engagement
    • Telephonic engagement
    • In-person engagement
    • Cookies
    • Your personal information may be collected and saved on our system for the following purposes:
      • To enable us to provide legal services.
      • To send news, updates and marketing information.
      • To review job applications.
      • To comply with legal requirements
    • Your personal information will not be used for the following purposes:
      • We will never use your personal information for direct marketing purposes without your consent (you may opt-out of our newsletter at any time)
      • We will never disclose your personal information to another third party without permission from yourself, unless it is required for fulfilment of our legal services or as mandated by law.
  • Right of the data subject under the POPI Act include, but are not limited to:
    • Having access to their recorded personal information
    • Requesting correction or amendment to their personal information and to have information corrected or amended
    • Requesting deletion or destruction of personal information from the responsible party’s system
    • Objecting to the processing of personal information
    • Submitting a complaint to the Regulator regarding the alleged interference with the protection of the personal information of any data subject or submitting a complaint to the Regulator (
    • Instituting civil proceedings regarding the alleged interference with the protection of their personal information.
  • We will retain your information for the period required by law.
  • Where we retain your contact information for any period other than may be prescribed by law, we retain this information to keep you updated of our various offerings and news. By not unsubscribing from newsletter, you consent to us retaining your personal information on our records indefinitely, for the purposes explained above, including, to keep you informed about news and updates pertaining to Dunsters Attorneys Inc.
  • We take reasonable technical and organisational measures to secure the integrity of your personal information and use accepted technological standards to prevent unauthorised access to or disclosure of your personal information, and protect your personal information from misuse, loss, alteration and destruction.
  • The measures that are taken in order to protect your personal information include:
    • Physical measures: access to physical copies of your information is controlled using strict protocol.
    • Electronic measures: firewalls and password protection
  • While we will take all reasonable steps to ensure the security of your data and personal information according to industry standards, it is not possible to guarantee the complete security of all information provided at all times.
  • We will notify you as soon as reasonably practicable of any breach of security, loss of or damage to your personal information.
  • Data subjects are responsible for taking reasonable precautions to safeguard their personal information.
  • Although we endeavour to ensure your information is as correct as possible, you are responsible for notifying us of any changes to your data or personal information in respect of the services provided and/or your account with us.
  • We will not be held liable for losses of any nature which are due to incorrect data or personal information provided by users in respect of the service provided.
  • We will not be held liable for any loss or damage arising from a security breach or disclosure of your personal information or data, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
  • We shall not be liable for any damage or interruptions caused by any computer viruses or other malicious code that may affect your computer or other equipment, or any phishing, spoofing or other attack.
  • If you suspect that your personal information has been compromised, or that there has been unauthorised use of your email address by any person, or any other violations to the security of the website, please contact us.
Save settings
Cookies settings