South Africa Case Law

Bidcorp Food Properties (Pty) Limited and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (2022/030828)

Bidcorp Food Properties (Pty) Limited and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (2022/030828) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1192 (20 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/030828

Judge

Theron

The High Court held that the municipality’s tariff and account decisions were not reviewable administrative action under PAJA and dismissed the application.

• Municipal Tariffs
• Administrative Action Exclusion
• Water Services Bylaws
• Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
• Municipal-tariffs
• Pa-ja-review

Van der Walt and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another - On Review (1176/2023)

Van der Walt and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another - On Review (1176/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 117 (12 October 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1176/2023

Judges

Rugunanan, Beshe

The applicants failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the charges or the grounds for their objections, rendering the review impossible. Their reliance on the Superior Courts Act is misplaced, as they did not allege any of the statutory grounds for review such as bias or corruption. The PAJA does not apply to judicial functions of magistrates or decisions to institute or continue prosecution. The applicants misconstrued the definition of administrative action and failed to establish any basis for impugning the competence of the prosecuting authority. The jurisdictional objection was not…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Magistrates Decision
• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Jurisdiction Of Trial Court
• Administrative Action Exclusion
• Delay In Review
• Section 85 Objection

Tshabalala and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg and Another (29734/2016)

Tshabalala and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg and Another (29734/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 154 (14 June 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

29734/2016

Judges

M L Twala, C I Moosa

The High Court dismissed a review of prosecution-related decisions, holding the applicants had not exhausted internal remedies and that the complaint was not reviewable administrative action.

• Judicial Review
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Administrative Action Exclusion
• Judicial-review
• Exhaustion-of-internal-remedies

Computicket (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa (118/CAC/APR12)

Computicket (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa (118/CAC/APR12) [2012] ZACAC 7; [2013] 1 CPLR 26 (CAC) (29 October 2012)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

118/CAC/APR12

Judges

Swain AJA, Davis JP, Dambuza JA

The Tribunal's refusal to order discovery and production of documents placed before the Competition Commission when it decided to refer the complaint is appealable, as irretrievable prejudice would result if the appellant were denied access to the evidence necessary for a proper review. The referral decision is reviewable under the constitutional principle of legality, requiring objective rationality and reasonable grounds for the decision. The appellant is entitled to the production of the record, meaning all materials, reports, recommendations, and evidence that served before the decision m…

Source excerpt

• Discovery In Review Proceedings
• Jurisdictional Facts
• Constitutional Principle Of Legality
• Administrative Action Exclusion
• Competition Act Section 50
• Rule 14 Privilege

Le Roux and Others v Honourable Magistrate and Others (16013/05)

Le Roux and Others v Honourable Magistrate and Others (16013/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 63 (22 June 2006)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

16013/05

Judge

Boruchowitz

The court held that the magistrate, in authorising the search warrant under section 69(3) of the Insolvency Act, exercised a judicial function and not an administrative action. Consequently, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act does not apply, and the applicants' reliance on PAJA was misplaced. The proper grounds for review are those set out in section 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act, which the applicants failed to invoke or substantiate. The application was therefore fatally defective and had to be dismissed. The court found it unnecessary to address the further issues raised by the ap…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Search And Seizure
• Insolvency Act Section 69
• Administrative Action Exclusion
• Liquidation Procedure