South Africa Case Law

Greyvensteyn v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (B2495/2023)

Greyvensteyn v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (B2495/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 707 (1 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B2495/2023

Judge

Amien

The court found that SARS' actions under sections 180 and 184(2) of the Tax Administration Act are administrative in nature and subject to judicial review under PAJA, thus not infringing the applicant's section 34 constitutional right to access to court. The applicant's challenge was deemed an abuse of process, justifying the costs order against him. However, the court acknowledged that there is a reasonable prospect that another court could find SARS' actions to be adjudicative, potentially leading to a different conclusion regarding constitutional validity. Given the public importance of th…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Constitutional Validity
• Access To Court
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation
• Administrative Vs Adjudicative Action

Mothulwe v Labour Court, Johannesburg and Others (CCT 13/24)

Mothulwe v Labour Court, Johannesburg and Others (CCT 13/24) [2025] ZACC 10; [2025] 8 BLLR 761 (CC); 2025 (8) BCLR 899 (CC); (2025) 46 ILJ 1853 (CC) (8 May 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 13/24

Judges

Maya, Madlanga, Kollapen, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Rogers, Seegobin, Theron, Tolmay, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court found that the Labour Court committed a gross procedural irregularity by failing to adjudicate the applicant's cross-review challenging the finding of guilt for corruption. This oversight denied the applicant his constitutional right of access to court under section 34 and resulted in grave injustice. The Court held that these circumstances were truly exceptional, warranting rescission of its previous orders refusing leave to appeal and rescission. The interests of justice required that the applicant's cross-review and condonation application be properly determined. T…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Access To Court
• Res Judicata
• Condonation
• Procedural Irregularity

Dogiso v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (11106/2024 ; 15223/2024 ; 15224/2024 ; D15226/2024 ; D15311/2024 ; D15485/2024 ; D15526/2024)

Dogiso v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (11106/2024 ; 15223/2024 ; 15224/2024 ; D15226/2024 ; D15311/2024 ; D15485/2024 ; D15526/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 25 (30 April 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

11106/2024

Judge

P Wallis

High Court judgment on multiple refugee matters criticising template affidavits, defective commissioning, and vague review papers, while making limited procedural orders.

• Refugees Act
• Commissioning Of Affidavits
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Access To Court
• Interdictory Relief
• Review Of Administrative Action

Ramohapi v Minister of Police and Others (1294/2019)

Ramohapi v Minister of Police and Others (1294/2019) [2025] ZAFSHC 116 (3 April 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1294/2019

Judge

Opperman

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to meet the statutory and procedural thresholds for leave to appeal. The grounds for appeal were not clearly or concisely stated, rendering the application fatally defective. The court found that the claim for malicious prosecution against the respondents had prescribed under the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002, as the statutory notice was not served within the required period and condonation for premature service did not interrupt prescription. The applicant's consti…

Source excerpt

• Prescription
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State Act
• Malicious Prosecution
• Leave To Appeal
• Access To Court

Greyvensteyn and Other v Commissioner of South African Revenue Service and Others (B2495/2023)

Greyvensteyn and Other v Commissioner of South African Revenue Service and Others (B2495/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 128 (12 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B2495/2023

Judge

Amien

The court finds that the process under sections 180 and 184(2) of the Tax Administration Act constitutes administrative action, not self-help, and is subject to judicial review under PAJA and the principle of legality. The applicant's right of access to court is not ousted, as he may challenge SARS' decision through substantive judicial review. The limitation imposed by section 186(3) on the applicant's rights to freedom of movement and trade is reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution, given the need to secure tax collection and prevent dissipation of assets. Judicial…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Personal Liability For Tax Debt
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Limitation Of Constitutional Rights
• Preservation And Repatriation Orders
• Access To Court

Mokoditoa and Others v Council for Medical Schemes and Others (23910/2022)

Mokoditoa and Others v Council for Medical Schemes and Others (23910/2022) [2025] ZAEQC 3 (10 February 2025)

Court

Equality Court

Case number

23910/2022

Judge

C Collis

The Equality Court issued directions to regularise defective EqualitY Court papers, requiring the original Form 2 and founding affidavit to be restored and served properly.

• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Procedural Regularisation
• Service Of Process
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Access To Court
• Equality-court

Bosaletse N.O. and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy (2015/2022)

Bosaletse N.O. and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy (2015/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 3 (6 January 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2015/2022

Judge

Van Rhyn

The court found that the plaintiffs never acquired a prospecting right, as their application was declined due to failure to obtain the landowner's consent. The claim for damages is a personal right, not a real right, and thus constitutes a 'debt' under the Prescription Act. The plaintiffs' cause of action arose at the latest by September 2013, when they knew or ought to have known of the refusal. As summons was only issued in May 2022, the claim for damages prescribed by September 2016. The plaintiffs did not act diligently and failed to exhaust internal remedies. The special plea of prescrip…

Source excerpt

• Prospecting Rights
• Extinctive Prescription
• Mandamus
• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act
• Access To Court
• Real Vs Personal Rights

Thobakgale and Others v Manganyi and Others (JR1465/18)

Thobakgale and Others v Manganyi and Others (JR1465/18) [2024] ZALCJHB 435 (8 November 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1465/18

Judge

Morgan

The Labour Court granted condonation for the late filing of a Rule 7A(8)(b) notice in a review application and kept the review set down for case management.

• Condonation
• Review Application
• Unfair Dismissal
• Rule 7a Labour Court
• Access To Court
• Labour-court-review

Matli v Minister of Police (3884/2022)

Matli v Minister of Police (3884/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 331 (24 October 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3884/2022

Judge

Daffue

The court found that the applicant was a lay person who acted promptly upon receiving correct legal advice, and that her initial delay was due to reliance on an attorney lacking expertise in personal injury claims. The respondent failed to demonstrate any unreasonable prejudice resulting from the late notice, as the facts were clear, the SAPS driver was identified, and the matter was investigated internally. The court emphasized the constitutional right of access to courts and held that technical non-compliance should not bar the applicant from pursuing her claim. The requirements for condona…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State Act
• Emotional Shock
• Funeral Expenses
• Access To Court

Kgalema v Department of Home Affairs and Others (6035/22)

Kgalema v Department of Home Affairs and Others (6035/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1069; [2025] 1 All SA 234 (GP) (24 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

6035/22

Judge

S J R Mogagabe

The court held that a valid customary marriage existed and ordered late registration and issuance of a marriage certificate, rejecting a procedural objection.

• Recognition Of Customary Marriages Act
• Late Registration Of Customary Marriage
• Customary Law Requirements
• Condonation
• Access To Court
• Customary-marriage