CRW2602 MCQ EXAM PACK 2026
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW GUIDE
◉ What were the two bases for the S v Masiya case? Answer: First,
confirmation proceedings in terms of section 172(2)(a) of the
Constitution; second, an application for leave to appeal against the
Pretoria High Court's judgment.
◉ What was the outcome of the Pretoria High Court's judgment in S
v Masiya? Answer: The common law definition of rape was declared
unconstitutional and extended to include non-consensual sexual
penetration of the male penis into the vagina or anus of another
person.
◉ Who were the parties involved in the S v Masiya case? Answer:
Fanuel Sitakeni Masiya (Applicant), Director of Public Prosecutions
(First Respondent), Minister of Justice and Constitutional
Development (Second Respondent), Centre for Applied Legal Studies
(First Amicus Curiae), Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre (Second
Amicus Curiae).
◉ When was the S v Masiya case heard and decided? Answer: Heard
on 9 November 2006 and decided on 10 May 2007.
,◉ What does the case S v A (1993) address in the context of criminal
law? Answer: The specific details are not provided in the notes, but
it is listed as a significant case in the Criminal Law Casebook.
◉ What is the significance of the case S v Sibiya (1955)? Answer: It is
included in the list of important cases in the Criminal Law Casebook,
indicating its relevance to South African criminal law.
◉ What does the case S v Nkosi (2012) contribute to criminal law?
Answer: The specific contributions are not detailed in the notes, but
it is noted as an important case in the context of criminal law.
◉ What is the focus of the case S v Ndebele and Others (2012)?
Answer: The specific focus is not detailed in the notes, but it is
recognized as a significant case in South African criminal law.
◉ What does the case Ex parte Minister of Justice: in re R v Gesa; R v
De Jongh (1959) involve? Answer: The specific details are not
provided, but it is listed among significant cases in the Criminal Law
Casebook.
◉ What is the relevance of S v Mshumpa (2008) in criminal law?
Answer: The specific relevance is not detailed in the notes, but it is
included in the list of important cases.
,◉ What does S v Gardener and Another (2011) address in the
context of criminal law? Answer: The specific details are not
provided, but it is noted as a significant case in the Criminal Law
Casebook.
◉ What does Section 172(2)(a) of the Constitution provide
regarding the Supreme Court of Appeal and constitutional validity?
Answer: It allows the Supreme Court of Appeal, a High Court, or a
court of similar status to make an order concerning the
constitutional validity of an Act of Parliament, but such an order has
no force unless confirmed by the Constitutional Court.
◉ What is the role of the Constitutional Court according to Section
167(5) of the Constitution? Answer: The Constitutional Court makes
the final decision on the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament, a
provincial Act, or conduct of the President, and must confirm any
order of invalidity made by lower courts before it has any force.
◉ Who can appeal or apply directly to the Constitutional Court
under Section 172(2)(d)? Answer: Any person with a sufficient
interest may appeal or apply to the Constitutional Court to confirm
or vary an order of constitutional invalidity.
◉ What was the outcome regarding gender-specific provisions in
the case of S v Masiya? Answer: Provisions declared invalid due to
being gender-specific must be read in to include 'person' wherever a
specific gender is referenced.
, ◉ What was determined about the proceedings in the Court a quo in
S v Masiya? Answer: The proceedings were determined to be in
accordance with justice as per Section 52 of Act 105/1997.
◉ What was the status of Mr. Masiya's sentencing in the case?
Answer: Sentencing was postponed until the Constitutional Court
made a determination on the order of constitutional invalidity.
◉ What charge was Mr. Masiya initially brought before the District
Court? Answer: He was charged with rape for allegedly having
sexual intercourse with a nine-year-old girl without her consent.
◉ What was the outcome of Mr. Masiya's trial regarding the charge
of rape? Answer: The Regional Court considered whether the
common law needed to be developed and ultimately ruled on the
constitutionality of the common law definitions of crime.
◉ What did the Regional Court conclude about the common law
definition of rape? Answer: It concluded that non-consensual anal
penetration amounts only to the lesser crime of indecent assault, not
rape, which is defined as non-consensual vaginal sexual intercourse.
◉ What legal principle did the Regional Court assert regarding its
jurisdiction? Answer: The court asserted it has jurisdiction to judge
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW GUIDE
◉ What were the two bases for the S v Masiya case? Answer: First,
confirmation proceedings in terms of section 172(2)(a) of the
Constitution; second, an application for leave to appeal against the
Pretoria High Court's judgment.
◉ What was the outcome of the Pretoria High Court's judgment in S
v Masiya? Answer: The common law definition of rape was declared
unconstitutional and extended to include non-consensual sexual
penetration of the male penis into the vagina or anus of another
person.
◉ Who were the parties involved in the S v Masiya case? Answer:
Fanuel Sitakeni Masiya (Applicant), Director of Public Prosecutions
(First Respondent), Minister of Justice and Constitutional
Development (Second Respondent), Centre for Applied Legal Studies
(First Amicus Curiae), Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre (Second
Amicus Curiae).
◉ When was the S v Masiya case heard and decided? Answer: Heard
on 9 November 2006 and decided on 10 May 2007.
,◉ What does the case S v A (1993) address in the context of criminal
law? Answer: The specific details are not provided in the notes, but
it is listed as a significant case in the Criminal Law Casebook.
◉ What is the significance of the case S v Sibiya (1955)? Answer: It is
included in the list of important cases in the Criminal Law Casebook,
indicating its relevance to South African criminal law.
◉ What does the case S v Nkosi (2012) contribute to criminal law?
Answer: The specific contributions are not detailed in the notes, but
it is noted as an important case in the context of criminal law.
◉ What is the focus of the case S v Ndebele and Others (2012)?
Answer: The specific focus is not detailed in the notes, but it is
recognized as a significant case in South African criminal law.
◉ What does the case Ex parte Minister of Justice: in re R v Gesa; R v
De Jongh (1959) involve? Answer: The specific details are not
provided, but it is listed among significant cases in the Criminal Law
Casebook.
◉ What is the relevance of S v Mshumpa (2008) in criminal law?
Answer: The specific relevance is not detailed in the notes, but it is
included in the list of important cases.
,◉ What does S v Gardener and Another (2011) address in the
context of criminal law? Answer: The specific details are not
provided, but it is noted as a significant case in the Criminal Law
Casebook.
◉ What does Section 172(2)(a) of the Constitution provide
regarding the Supreme Court of Appeal and constitutional validity?
Answer: It allows the Supreme Court of Appeal, a High Court, or a
court of similar status to make an order concerning the
constitutional validity of an Act of Parliament, but such an order has
no force unless confirmed by the Constitutional Court.
◉ What is the role of the Constitutional Court according to Section
167(5) of the Constitution? Answer: The Constitutional Court makes
the final decision on the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament, a
provincial Act, or conduct of the President, and must confirm any
order of invalidity made by lower courts before it has any force.
◉ Who can appeal or apply directly to the Constitutional Court
under Section 172(2)(d)? Answer: Any person with a sufficient
interest may appeal or apply to the Constitutional Court to confirm
or vary an order of constitutional invalidity.
◉ What was the outcome regarding gender-specific provisions in
the case of S v Masiya? Answer: Provisions declared invalid due to
being gender-specific must be read in to include 'person' wherever a
specific gender is referenced.
, ◉ What was determined about the proceedings in the Court a quo in
S v Masiya? Answer: The proceedings were determined to be in
accordance with justice as per Section 52 of Act 105/1997.
◉ What was the status of Mr. Masiya's sentencing in the case?
Answer: Sentencing was postponed until the Constitutional Court
made a determination on the order of constitutional invalidity.
◉ What charge was Mr. Masiya initially brought before the District
Court? Answer: He was charged with rape for allegedly having
sexual intercourse with a nine-year-old girl without her consent.
◉ What was the outcome of Mr. Masiya's trial regarding the charge
of rape? Answer: The Regional Court considered whether the
common law needed to be developed and ultimately ruled on the
constitutionality of the common law definitions of crime.
◉ What did the Regional Court conclude about the common law
definition of rape? Answer: It concluded that non-consensual anal
penetration amounts only to the lesser crime of indecent assault, not
rape, which is defined as non-consensual vaginal sexual intercourse.
◉ What legal principle did the Regional Court assert regarding its
jurisdiction? Answer: The court asserted it has jurisdiction to judge
