South Africa Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

South Africa Case Law

  • 14 Aug 2026

    a)Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others

    The majority held that the Supreme Court of Appeal misdirected itself in treating the defects in the grant and renewals of the exploration right as curable by consultation at the renewal stage, because the MPRDA did not contemplate the kind of consultation ordered and because the remedy did not address the broader review defects or the changed factual and legal context. The majority concluded that remittal would not be just and equitable and that the unlawful decisions should be set aside without remittal or suspension, restoring the High Court’s order.

    • Just and equitable remedy
    • Review of administrative action
    • Meaningful consultation
    • Precautionary principle
    • Environmental rights
    • Exploration right renewal

  • 27 Jul 2026

    Tshabangu v S

    The Constitutional Court held that it had jurisdiction over the fair-trial complaint arising from the High Court's exercise of powers under sections 167 and 186 of the Criminal Procedure Act, because the manner in which the High Court recalled and questioned witnesses was a serious irregularity that undermined trial fairness. The High Court called witnesses to investigate alleged prosecutorial misconduct and relied on inadmissible submissions rather than evidence, then questioned witnesses in a way that departed from neutrality and appeared to assist the State. The resulting evidence should b…

    • Fair trial
    • Recalling and subpoenaing witnesses
    • Inquisitorial judicial powers
    • Recent possession
    • Inferential reasoning
    • Condonation

  • 7 Jul 2026

    Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others

    The impugned provisions are unconstitutional because they prevent asylum seekers from obtaining a merits-based assessment by disqualifying them for procedural non-compliance, thereby violating non-refoulement; section 21(1B) also confers unguided discretion and, with or without the now-invalid regulations, is irrational and vague. The High Court's order declaring sections 4(1)(f), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(i) and 21(1B) invalid is therefore confirmed.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Asylum applications
    • Constitutional validity of legislation
    • Subordinate legislation
    • Vagueness and discretion
    • Costs

  • 7 Jul 2026

    Motjamela v George Local Municipality.

    The Court held that it had constitutional jurisdiction because both the vexatious litigant order and the unsolicited mental health assessment order implicated rights under sections 10, 12, 14 and 34 of the Constitution. It found that the High Court’s vexatious litigant order was too broad because it extended beyond the evidence and beyond the relief sought, and therefore had to be replaced with a narrower order limited to litigation concerning the applicant’s terminated Expanded Public Works Programme employment contracts. It further held that the mental health assessment order was unsustaina…

    • Vexatious litigant order
    • Mental health assessment order
    • Access to courts
    • Dignity
    • Privacy
    • Freedom and security of the person

  • 2 Jul 2026

    (A)Thozama Angela Adonisi and Others v Minister for Transport and Public Works, Western Cape and Others

    The Province and City failed to take reasonable measures to progressively realise adequate housing in a manner that addressed spatial injustice in central Cape Town, particularly because their housing delivery remained concentrated on the periphery and did not include sufficient well-located affordable housing in the CBD/Sea Point area. The Tafelberg disposal was unlawful because GIAMA’s mandatory surplus and asset-management requirements were not complied with, the Province failed to meaningfully consult the National Minister as required by co-operative governance and the IGRFA, and regulati…

    • Section 26 right to adequate housing
    • Section 25(5) equitable access to land
    • Spatial justice and spatial apartheid
    • Giama surplus land and asset management plans
    • Wclaa disposal of provincial state land
    • Meaningful public participation

  • 30 Jun 2026

    a)BNP Paribas v Competition Commission of South Africa

    The Commission had not appealed CAC I and had accepted it by filing the superseding affidavit in purported compliance with its orders; accordingly the section 3(1) rulings in CAC I were res judicata and perempted. The Act did not prohibit post-referral joinder, and no fresh initiation was required for further respondents. On the merits, only JPM Bank and SAI succeeded for the Commission, while CSS succeeded in resisting joinder; most other factual challenges failed because they raised no legal error engaging constitutional appellate jurisdiction. BNP’s vague-and-embarrassing exception was not…

    • Leave to appeal
    • Exception procedure
    • Joinder
    • Complaint initiation
    • Personal jurisdiction
    • Subject matter jurisdiction

  • 26 Jun 2026

    Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa: In re Constitutionality of the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill

    The referral was incompetent in respect of sections 6A, 7A and 8A because Parliament had already deleted the provisions targeted by the President’s original reservations, so those sections as a whole were not properly before the Court. Sections 12A, 12B, 12C, 19B and 19C were within the referral and were constitutional, but subsections 12D(1)-(5) went too far: they were too broad, insufficiently defined, and interfered with copyright owners’ normal exploitation of their works without adequate justification, amounting to an arbitrary deprivation of property. The corresponding holdings apply to…

    • Section 79 referral competence
    • Copyright exceptions and limitations
    • Property deprivation under section 25(1)
    • Fair use
    • Education exceptions
    • International treaty compatibility

  • 24 Jun 2026

    Jan Louis Jordaan v MEC for Local Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape and Others

    The Supreme Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant's review was res judicata because the earlier settlement order arose from different parties, a different cause of action and a different subject matter, and its bare terms did not show that the relevant issues were finally determined. Leave to appeal was therefore granted and the appeal upheld; however, because the merits involved technical and factual issues better suited to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the matter was remitted rather than decided finally by the Constitutional Court.

    • Res judicata
    • Leave to appeal
    • Environmental authorisation
    • Judicial review
    • Protected areas
    • Settlement order

  • 23 Jun 2026

    Lueven Metals (Pty) Limited v CSARS

    Section 11(1)(f) of the VAT Act requires, in addition to supply to a prescribed purchaser and supply in one of the prescribed forms, that the gold must not have undergone a historical manufacturing process other than refining or manufacture or production into the prescribed forms. On the ordinary text of the provision, recycled or second-hand gold that was previously manufactured into non-prescribed forms is excluded from zero-rating, and the contextual and purposive material does not justify a contrary reading.

    • Value-added tax
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Zero-rating of gold supplies
    • Second-hand/recycled gold
    • Costs

  • 3 Jun 2026

    Jacolien Barnard N.O. and Another v National Consumer Tribunal and Another

    By majority, the Court held that the liquidators were participants in the hearing for purposes of section 148(2)(b) because the NCA’s scheme, including the Tribunal’s inquisitorial and informal process, permits participation through affidavits and written engagement with the proceedings; physical attendance at the oral argument stage was not a jurisdictional prerequisite for an appeal. On that basis, leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed by the majority.

    • Interpretation of section 148(2)(b) of the national credit act
    • Meaning of participant in a hearing
    • Tribunal hearings and participation
    • Appeal vs rescission under the national credit act
    • Liquidation and joinder