Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
BCJ v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2024/8) [2025] ZATC 7 (23 May 2025)
The Tax Court held that SARS gave inadequate reasons for a GAAR assessment because it did not explain why the arrangement was said to occur in a business context.
Harambe Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Sentech SOC Ltd (2023/058224) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1162 (7 November 2024)
The court found that Sentech failed to provide proper and adequate reasons for its administrative decisions as required by PAJA and Rule 53(1)(b). The documents attached to Sentech's affidavit did not constitute sufficient reasons, and the hearsay evidence provided by Sentech's legal practitioner was disregarded. Harambe's application to compel reasons under Rule 30A was granted, as Sentech was obliged to provide reasons in terms of section 5(1) of PAJA. The striking out application was dismissed as the hearsay evidence was disregarded without the need for a formal order. Sentech's applicatio…
Source excerpt
Sayed obo O.M v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (21310/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 906; [2024] 4 All SA 903 (GP) (13 September 2024)
The court held that the Tribunal's decision to confirm the rejection of the serious injury assessment report was reasonable and fell within the bounds of its statutory powers. The injuries sustained by the minor child—bruising, swelling, and lacerations—were expressly listed as non-serious under the Road Accident Fund Regulations and thus excluded from compensation for non-pecuniary loss. The Tribunal provided detailed written reasons, which were adequate and enabled the applicant to formulate grounds for review. The applicant failed to prove any of the PAJA grounds for review, including bias…
Source excerpt
Mediterranean Shipping Company (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (AR160/2022) [2024] ZAKZPHC 110 (26 April 2024)
The court found that SARS failed to properly consider the submissions and evidence presented by MSC, including the EDI release notification, the absence of fraudulent intent, and the Customs Code of Instructions Manual, which required forfeiture only in cases of intentional fraud. SARS did not provide adequate reasons for its decision at the time it was made, instead relying on ex post facto rationalisations in its answering affidavit. The penalty imposed was not rationally connected to the facts, as there was no loss to the fiscus and no evidence of fraud. SARS failed to apply its own intern…
Source excerpt
Qutyana v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (16543/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 629 (26 July 2023)
High Court review of an HPCSA appeal tribunal’s finding that RAF injuries were not serious. The court found inadequate reasons and failed consideration of expert evidence.
African Centre for Biodiversity NPC v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 520; 27524/2017 (27 June 2023)
The court held that the applicant failed to establish grounds for review under PAJA. The Executive Council complied with section 5(1)(a) of the GMO Act and was not required to call for an independent environmental impact assessment, as the activity was not listed under NEMA and the evidence did not indicate a threat to indigenous species or the environment. The precautionary principle, while relevant to environmental law, is not directly applicable in review proceedings, which focus on lawfulness, reasonableness, and procedural fairness. Public participation requirements were met through news…
Source excerpt
LSM Security (Pty) Ltd and Others v MEC, Department of Social Development, EC and Another (2300/2022) [2023] ZAECQBHC 12 (24 January 2023)
The High Court granted an interim interdict stopping implementation of a security-services tender award pending a review, finding the Department’s reasons vague and inadequate.
Ling and Another v The Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs and Another (6928/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 177 (9 September 2022)
The court found that the Director-General's refusal of the applicants' permanent residence applications was based solely on a material mistake of fact regarding the authenticity of a bank statement, which was later confirmed to be legitimate. The Director-General failed to provide adequate reasons, leaving the applicants unable to address the alleged fraud or pursue internal remedies. The respondents conceded that the decision was susceptible to review but opposed a substitution order. The court held that, given the lack of any other grounds for refusal, the absence of relevant expertise requ…
Source excerpt
Vukani Gaming Free State (Pty) Ltd v Pillay & Others (577/2020) [2021] ZASCA 137 (6 October 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a licence-granting decision after finding inadequate reasons and unresolved doubts about the forensic report relied on by the Authority.
Motloung v Road Accident Fund Appeal Tribunal and Others (100/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 493 (2 August 2021)
The High Court reviewed and set aside an RAF Appeal Tribunal decision that found the applicant’s injuries non-serious, holding the tribunal gave inadequate reasons and acted unreasonably.
Explore more
