South Africa Case Law

Metrofibre Networx (Pty) Ltd v Independent Communications Authority of South Africa and Others (2023/044527)

Metrofibre Networx (Pty) Ltd v Independent Communications Authority of South Africa and Others (2023/044527) [2024] ZAGPPHC 919 (11 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/044527

Judge

Brand, AJ

The High Court held that Telkom could complain to ICASA without proving ownership of the ducts, and dismissed Metrofibre’s review of the CCC and ICASA decisions.

• Electronic Communications Facilities Leasing
• Servitude Rights
• Ownership Vs Accession
• Administrative Review Under Paja
• Jurisdiction Of Icasa
• Infrastructure Leasing Regulations

TT and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (20/43969)

TT and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (20/43969) [2022] ZAGPJHC 931; [2023] 1 All SA 803 (GJ); 2023 (2) SA 565 (GJ) (19 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20/43969

Judge

E F Dippenaar

The court found that the Department and its social workers unlawfully interfered with the adoptions of B and L by misinterpreting and misapplying the Children’s Act and the Guidelines, causing unjustified delays and breaching the constitutional rights of the applicants and the minor children. The Department’s Practice Guidelines on National Adoption were declared invalid as they were inconsistent with the Constitution and the Children’s Act, imposed requirements not contemplated by law, and were promulgated ultra vires. The Department’s refusal to issue a recommendation letter for B’s adoptio…

Source excerpt

• Adoption Procedure
• Children S Act Interpretation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Administrative Review Under Paja
• Privacy And Confidentiality
• Doctrine Of Legality

JFM v Mogale City Local Municipality (30195/2020)

JFM v Mogale City Local Municipality (30195/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 570 (15 October 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

30195/2020

Judge

Senyatsi ML

The court held that the respondent is not entitled to demand payment of municipal debts older than two years for the purposes of issuing a clearance certificate under section 118(1) of the Local Government Municipal Systems Act. The statutory scheme creates a clear embargo: only debts incurred in the two years preceding the application for the certificate are relevant for clearance. The respondent's reliance on a prior settlement agreement and court order does not override the statutory limitation. The applicant complied with the requirements for administrative review, and the respondent's pr…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Rates Clearance
• Section 118 Local Government Municipal Systems Act
• Administrative Review Under Paja
• Historical Debt Limitation
• Property Transfer Requirements