South Africa Case Law

Kego Mining (Pty) Ltd and Another v Woestalleen Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (5029/2024)

Kego Mining (Pty) Ltd and Another v Woestalleen Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (5029/2024) [2024] ZAMPMHC 63 (18 November 2024)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

5029/2024

Judge

MBG Langa

The court found that the order granted on 21 October 2024 was interim in nature, not final, and therefore not appealable. The requirements for a final order as set out in Zweni were not met, as the order did not dispose of the substantive rights of the parties and could be revisited in subsequent proceedings. The applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The arguments regarding ministerial consent, locus standi, and procedural irregularity were rejected, as the ministerial consent did not constitute a c…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Interim Interdict
• Ministerial Consent
• Administrative Action Under Paja
• Locus Standi
• Rule 6 5 E Application

Van Heerden and Another v Master of the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth and Others (1358/2022)

Van Heerden and Another v Master of the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth and Others (1358/2022) [2023] ZAECQBHC 59; [2023] 4 All SA 875 (ECP) (3 October 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1358/2022

Judge

Matebese

The High Court held that the Master may appoint an evidence leader in a section 381 enquiry, but set aside the particular appointment of Adv van Zyl for lack of reasons.

• Companies Act Section 381
• Administrative Action Under Paja
• Locus Standi
• Unreasonable Delay
• Appointment Of Evidence Leader
• Review Of Master Decisions

Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Others v Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd (786/21)

Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Others v Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd (786/21) [2022] ZASCA 51; [2022] 2 All SA 607 (SCA); 2022 (4) SA 57 (SCA); [2022] HIPR 201 (SCA) (12 April 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

786/21

Judges

Petse DP, Schippers JA, Plasket JA, Hughes JA, Matojane AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Bliss Brands had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the ARB by participating fully in its processes without objection, thereby precluding any challenge to jurisdiction or the constitutionality of the ARB's MOI or Code. The ARB's powers are lawfully sourced in its MOI and Code, which constitute empowering provisions under PAJA. The ARB may consider complaints regarding advertisements by non-members for the benefit of its members, and its rulings are not binding on non-members unless they submit to jurisdiction. The High Court erred by raising con…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Private Bodies
• Self Regulation In Advertising
• Administrative Action Under Paja
• Freedom Of Expression
• Freedom Of Association
• Access To Court

Deltatex Holding Limited v Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd Limited and Others (166/2012)

Deltatex Holding Limited v Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd Limited and Others (166/2012) [2019] ZAGPPHC 172 (6 June 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

166/2012

Judge

Strijdom

The court dismissed a challenge to a registrar’s security-for-costs order, refused condonation for a delayed PAJA review, and granted dismissal of the claim.

• Security For Costs
• Judicial Review
• Condonation Of Delay
• Administrative Action Under Paja
• Rule 47
• Peremption

Funani v MEC: Department of Education Eastern Cape Province and Another (479/2016)

Funani v MEC: Department of Education Eastern Cape Province and Another (479/2016) [2017] ZAECBHC 9 (12 October 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

479/2016

Judge

Stretch

The court held that the applicant's claim, based on the Department's refusal to pay leave gratuity and bonus, constitutes a dispute about unfair labour practices as defined in the Labour Relations Act. The relief sought arises from the employment relationship and is subject to the dispute resolution mechanisms established by the LRA. The High Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies and did not properly plead a contractual or administrative law basis for her…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Administrative Action Under Paja
• Leave Gratuity
• Review Of Administrative Action

KZN Talk radio (Pty) Limited v Independent Communications Authority of South Africa and Another (41672/12)

KZN Talk radio (Pty) Limited v Independent Communications Authority of South Africa and Another (41672/12) [2014] ZAGPJHC 396 (5 August 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

41672/12

Judge

Francis

The court reviewed ICASA’s award of the Durban FM radio licence to One Gospel, finding procedural unfairness and remitting the matter for reconsideration.

• Broadcasting Licensing
• Procedural Fairness
• Diversity Of Ownership
• Electronic Communications Act
• Administrative Action Under Paja
• Broadcasting-licensing

Giant Concerts CC v Rinaldo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 25/12)

Giant Concerts CC v Rinaldo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 25/12) [2012] ZACC 28; 2013 (3) BCLR 251 (CC) (29 November 2012)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 25/12

Judges

Cameron, Mogoeng, Moseneke, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that Giant Concerts CC lacked standing to challenge the municipal land sale because its asserted interest was hypothetical and unsupported.

• Standing Under Section 38
• Administrative Action Under Paja
• Municipal Land Sale
• Competitive Tendering
• Ultra Vires
• Procedural Fairness

Van Rensburg NO and Another v Naidoo NO and Others, Naidoo NO and Others v Van Rensburg NO and Others (155/09, 455/09)

Van Rensburg NO and Another v Naidoo NO and Others, Naidoo NO and Others v Van Rensburg NO and Others (155/09, 455/09) [2010] ZASCA 68; [2010] 4 All SA 398 (SCA) ; 2011 (4) SA 149 (SCA) (26 May 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

155/09, 455/09

Judges

Navsa, Heher, Van Heerden, Mhlantla, Saldulker

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the restrictive title deed conditions in favour of erf-holders are praedial servitudes and cannot be removed or altered by the MEC without proper delegation and due process. The MEC failed to consider written objections and did not prove lawful delegation of authority, rendering the removal decision invalid under PAJA. The Municipality's zoning regulations and guesthouse policy do not override restrictive conditions. The High Court, not sitting as a court of appeal or review, lacked power to suspend or nullify a final order of another court of equal juris…

Source excerpt

• Restrictive Title Conditions
• Removal Of Restrictions Act
• Praedial Servitude
• Administrative Action Under Paja
• Stay Of Execution
• Municipal Zoning

Van Rensburg NO and Another v MEC for Housing, Local Government and Traditional Affairs, Eastern Cape Province and Others (687/2008)

Van Rensburg NO and Another v MEC for Housing, Local Government and Traditional Affairs, Eastern Cape Province and Others (687/2008) [2009] ZAECPEHC 27 (2 June 2009)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

687/2008

Judge

N Dambuza

The court held that the restrictive conditions in the title deed were praedial servitudes conferring real rights on the applicants and other erf holders. The applicants were entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before any amendment or removal of these conditions. The first respondent's decision was made without proper notice to all affected parties and without considering the applicants' submissions, resulting in procedural unfairness. Furthermore, the first respondent lacked the legal authority to make the decision, as only the Premier could do so under the relevant legislation,…

Source excerpt

• Removal Of Restrictive Conditions
• Praedial Servitude
• Administrative Action Under Paja
• Ultra Vires Decision
• Procedural Fairness
• Notice To Interested Parties

Oribel Properties 13 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Blue Dot Properties 271 (Pty) Ltd and Others (12901/08)

Oribel Properties 13 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Blue Dot Properties 271 (Pty) Ltd and Others (12901/08) [2009] ZAWCHC 32 (13 March 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12901/08

Judge

Jamie

The court found that the actions of the Registrar of Deeds and Surveyor-General in registering the real right of extension and approving the subdivision constituted administrative action under PAJA. However, the non-compliance with section 25(2) of the Sectional Titles Act was of minimal practical consequence, as the applicants were aware of and amenable to the reservation of the right, and suffered no prejudice. The purpose of section 25(2) is to protect existing owners, but in this case, the physical alterations were minor and did not materially affect other owners. The court exercised its…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Titles Act
• Real Right Of Extension
• Administrative Action Under Paja
• Statutory Compliance
• Judicial Review
• Locus Standi