South Africa Case Law

South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC & Another (Afriforum, Centre for Applied Legal Studies and Commission for Gender Equality intervening as Amici Curiae) (39/2023)

South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC & Another (Afriforum, Centre for Applied Legal Studies and Commission for Gender Equality intervening as Amici Curiae) (39/2023) [2024] ZASCA 121; [2024] 4 All SA 66 (SCA); 2024 (6) SA 443 (SCA) (15 August 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

39/2023

Judges

Mocumie, Mbatha, Mothle, Mabindla-Boqwana, Tolmay

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the South African Human Rights Commission does not possess the power to issue binding directives under section 184(2)(b) of the Constitution or section 13(3) of the SAHRC Act. The Court found that the language of the Constitution and the SAHRC Act empowers the Commission to investigate, report, and take steps to secure appropriate redress, but does not confer adjudicative or coercive powers. The SAHRC's role is to facilitate, recommend, and assist affected persons, including by approaching courts or tribunals for relief, but its directives are not legally…

Source excerpt

• Chapter 9 Institutions
• Powers Of South African Human Rights Commission
• Binding Directives
• Appropriate Redress
• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Access To Water

Afriforum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and Others (A48/2023)

Afriforum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and Others (A48/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 96 (28 March 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A48/2023

Judges

Mbhele, Reinders, Chesiwe

The appeal succeeded because the court a quo failed to properly apply the Biowatch principle to the facts. The appellant acted bona fide in seeking to protect constitutional rights relating to access to clean water, and there was no evidence of frivolous, vexatious, or mala fide conduct. The urgency of the matter was ongoing due to the continued lack of clean water. The court held that imposing costs on unsuccessful constitutional litigants may deter public interest litigation and undermine constitutional rights. Therefore, the costs order against the appellant was set aside and replaced with…

Source excerpt

• Costs In Constitutional Litigation
• Biowatch Principle
• Urgent Application
• Access To Water
• Judicial Discretion

South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC and Another (Leave to Appeal) (1448/2021)

South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC and Another (Leave to Appeal) (1448/2021) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 95 (9 December 2022)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1448/2021

Judge

Greyling-Coetzer

The High Court granted condonation and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal on a public-interest question about the binding nature of SAHRC directives.

• Powers Of Chapter 9 Institutions
• Declaratory Relief
• Leave To Appeal
• Access To Water
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Leave-to-appeal

Rand Water Board v Rautenbach and Another (4654/2019)

Rand Water Board v Rautenbach and Another (4654/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 497 (13 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

4654/2019

Judge

Neukircher

The court found that there are material disputes of fact regarding whether consent for the encroachments was granted, the extent and materiality of the encroachments, and their impact on Rand Water's constitutional and statutory obligations. These disputes cannot be resolved on paper and require oral evidence and factual determination at trial. The interests of justice demand that the matter be referred to trial, where the parties can fully ventilate the issues and present expert evidence if necessary. The application and counter-application are thus not decided on the papers, and the matter…

Source excerpt

• Servitude Encroachment
• Consent To Development
• Access To Water
• Constitutional Obligations
• Disputes Of Fact
• Referral To Trial

South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC and Another (1448/2021)

South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC and Another (1448/2021) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 58 (2 March 2022)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1448/2021

Judge

Greyling-Coetzer AJ

The court held that the SAHRC does not possess judicial or penal powers to issue binding remedial orders against private parties. Its constitutional and statutory mandate is to take steps to secure appropriate redress, not to grant final remedies. The directives issued by the SAHRC must be interpreted in context: those that constitute steps towards securing redress (such as facilitating engagement and information exchange) are actionable and cannot be ignored without consequence. However, directives that purport to grant final remedial relief (such as ordering restoration of water supply free…

Source excerpt

• Chapter 9 Institutions
• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Access To Water
• Binding Nature Of Directives
• Municipal Obligations
• Human Rights Redress

Makubo and Others v Uys and Others (LCC02/2018)

Makubo and Others v Uys and Others (LCC02/2018) [2018] ZALCC 9 (9 May 2018)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC02/2018

Judge

T M Ncube

Urgent land claims application struck off the roll after the court found no urgency, no main river on the farm, and no reasonable prospect of success.

• Urgent Interdict
• Long Term Occupier Status
• Eviction Threats
• Access To Water
• Costs Order
• Urgent-interdict