South Africa Case Law

Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Others (2020-22061)

Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Others (2020-22061) [2024] ZAGPJHC 222 (21 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/22061

Judge

N Manoim

The court held that the casting vote exercised by the FAC chairperson was valid under the ARB's MOI and did not constitute a reviewable irregularity. The FAC's findings that Bliss Brands' Securex packaging breached clauses 8 and 9 of the ARB Code were based on solid reasoning and evidence of visual proximity and imitation, and were not irrational or materially erroneous. The sanction period afforded to Bliss was adequate, considering the cumulative time provided by both the AAC and FAC orders. The interim interdict granted by Fisher J was discharged, as all constitutional and review issues ha…

Source excerpt

• Advertising Code Interpretation
• Review Of Private Regulatory Decisions
• Self Regulation
• Administrative Law Principles
• Company Constitution
• Sanctions In Advertising Disputes

Gcwabe Consulting (Pty) Ltd v South African Police Services (46817/2015)

Gcwabe Consulting (Pty) Ltd v South African Police Services (46817/2015) [2022] ZAGPPHC 601 (10 August 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

46817/2015

Judge

N Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

The High Court held that post-closing amendments to tender price-list conditions breached section 217 and declared the SAPS contract with Gcwabe Consulting invalid.

• Public Procurement
• Section 217 Constitution
• Tender Irregularity
• Contractual Validity
• Administrative Law Principles
• Judicial Review

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v MEC for Economic Development, Environmental Affairs And Tourism: Eastern Cape and Others (1278/14)

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v MEC for Economic Development, Environmental Affairs And Tourism: Eastern Cape and Others (1278/14) [2014] ZAECGHC 106; 2015 (1) BCLR 102 (ECG); [2015] 1 All SA 239 (ECG) (13 November 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1278/14

Judge

Smith

The court held that grocer’s wine licences issued under the 1989 Liquor Act constitute property for the purposes of section 25(1) of the Constitution, as they are definable, transferable, commercially valuable, and sufficiently permanent. The impugned provisions of the Eastern Cape Liquor Act resulted in the permanent and automatic deprivation of these rights, which went beyond normal regulatory restrictions and substantially interfered with the applicant’s business model. The respondents failed to provide sufficient and compelling reasons for the deprivation, relying on vague assertions of r…

Source excerpt

• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property
• Liquor Licensing
• Section 25 Constitution
• Severability Of Statute
• Interim Relief
• Administrative Law Principles