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
Kingscott v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (034689/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1127 (5 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed a review of a refused critical skills visa, holding that a candidate engineer did not meet the statutory skills requirement.
Singh v South African Reserve Bank (35964/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1211 (22 September 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a judgment upholding the attachment of R40 million, finding no factual basis for the alleged irrationality.
Minister of Constitutional Development and Another v South African Restructuring and Insolvency Practitioners Association and Others (CCT13/17) [2018] ZACC 20; 2018 (5) SA 349 (CC); 2018 (9) BCLR 1099 (CC) (5 July 2018)
The majority held that the Minister’s policy for appointing provisional trustees under the Insolvency Act was invalid as it was not reasonably capable of achieving equality, failed to provide plausible reasons for differentiating between previously disadvantaged persons based on citizenship date, and was arbitrary and irrational. The policy unlawfully fettered the Master’s discretion by mandating rigid appointment ratios and did not adequately protect the interests of creditors. The exclusion of persons who became citizens on or after 27 April 1994 from the benefits of the policy was found to…
Source excerpt
Fusion Hotel and Entertainment Centre CC v Ethekwini Municipality and Another (15589/2007) [2014] ZAKZDHC 8 (8 February 2014)
The court found that the Applicant was the successful party, as the order it sought was ultimately granted after the First Respondent conceded the substantive relief. The litigation was prolonged by the Respondents' conduct, including their failure to produce the development plan and refusal to indemnify the Second Respondent. The tender process was flawed, lacking competitiveness and fairness as required by law. The Applicant established a substantial right by having the award set aside, and the improper conduct of the First Respondent justified an award of costs, including costs of two coun…
Source excerpt
Freedom Stationery (Pty) Ltd v MEC for Education, Eastern Cape and Another (280/2011) [2013] ZAECBHC 10 (9 September 2013)
The court found that the plaintiff's reply to the Department's inquiry was properly delivered to the facsimile number and email address stipulated by the second defendant. The defendants admitted receipt by the relevant machines, and the internal procedures for handling such correspondence were within the Department's exclusive knowledge. The court held that the plaintiff was not required to prove personal receipt by the second defendant, as it had complied with the stipulated mode of communication. The Department's denial of receipt was contradicted by its own admissions and the evidence, an…
Source excerpt
DENOSA obo Mangena v MEC for Department of Health, Western Cape (C 914/11) [2013] ZALCCT 1; [2013] 5 BLLR 479 (LC) (14 February 2013)
The Labour Court found that the MEC's decision to refuse reinstatement of the applicant under section 17(3)(b) of the Public Service Act was irrational, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The MEC failed to apply the correct legal test, which requires consideration of whether the employment relationship had become intolerable due to the employee's conduct. The applicant was absent due to ill health and provided medical certificates, and there was no evidence that reinstatement was impracticable. The MEC provided no reasons for the decision, and his approach was contrary to established legal principl…
Source excerpt
Dumani v Nair and Another (144/2012) [2012] ZASCA 196; 2013 (2) SA 274 (SCA); [2013] 2 All SA 125 (SCA) (30 November 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a magistrate’s review of misconduct convictions, holding that alleged factual misdirection did not justify review under PAJA.
Law Society of the Northern Provinces v Minister of Labour and Others (61197/11) [2012] ZAGPPHC 224; 2013 (1) SA 468 (GNP); [2013] 1 BLLR 105 (GNP); (2012) 33 ILJ 2798 (GNP); [2013] 1 All SA 688 (GNP) (15 October 2012)
The court found that rule 25(1)(c) of the CCMA rules, which restricts legal practitioners from representing parties in dismissal arbitrations involving conduct or capacity unless certain conditions are met, is inconsistent with the Constitution and PAJA. The rule arbitrarily limits the discretion of commissioners to allow legal representation in serious cases, as PAJA requires that such discretion be available in both serious and complex matters. The court held that the limitation imposed by the rule is not rationally connected to its purpose and is therefore arbitrary. The High Court has jur…
Source excerpt
Weder v MEC for Health, Western Cape (C 993/11) [2012] ZALCCT 35; [2013] 1 BLLR 94 (LC); (2013) 34 ILJ 1315 (LC) (5 September 2012)
The Labour Court found that the MEC's refusal to reinstate the applicant was arbitrary and irrational. The applicant's absence was due to a serious illness, and he had provided a reasonable explanation and medical evidence. The MEC failed to apply the correct legal test, namely whether the applicant's conduct rendered continued employment intolerable, and did not provide reasons for the decision. The Court held that, in the absence of misconduct and given the compelling explanation, the applicant was entitled to reinstatement. The Labour Court had jurisdiction to review the MEC's decision und…
Source excerpt
Explore more
