South Africa Case Law

Leuvennink v South African Civil Aviation Authority and Others (2022/12875)

Leuvennink v South African Civil Aviation Authority and Others (2022/12875) [2023] ZAGPPHC 633 (31 July 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/12875

Judge

K Strydom

The court held that the application was competently brought under PAIA, regardless of the section referenced in the notice of motion. The respondent, as a public body, bore the burden to justify refusal of access to the requested records. The respondent failed to provide sufficient factual detail or evidence to bring the records within the claimed exemptions under section 41 of PAIA, SACARS, or the ICAO Convention. The court found that neither international agreements nor domestic aviation regulations override the right of access under PAIA, which prevails in case of inconsistency. The respon…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Aviation Regulation
• International Agreements
• Statutory Exemptions
• Burden Of Proof
• Costs Award

Mandel v South African Civil Aviation Authority and Others (1467/2023)

Mandel v South African Civil Aviation Authority and Others (1467/2023) [2023] ZAECQBHC 33 (6 June 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1467/2023

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated urgency, as the period of suspension would expire before the review could be heard, depriving him of substantial redress. The appeal committee was not operational, rendering internal remedies unavailable and justifying exemption under PAJA. The respondents failed to comply with the prescribed enforcement process, particularly by not properly assessing the likelihood of harm as required by the regulations and enforcement manual. Procedural anomalies, including failure to provide evidence and consider representations, constituted procedural un…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Procedural Fairness
• Interim Interdict
• Aviation Regulation

South African Hang and Paragliding Association and Another v Bewick (1010/2013)

South African Hang and Paragliding Association and Another v Bewick (1010/2013) [2015] ZASCA 34; 2015 (3) SA 449 (SCA); [2015] 2 All SA 581 (SCA) (25 March 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1010/2013

Judges

Brand, Mhlantla, Leach, Saldulker, Mbha

The SCA held that, even if tandem paragliding for reward was illegal, SAHPA and SACAA were not delictually liable for failing to stop it.

• Wrongfulness Of Omission
• Statutory Duty
• Causation
• Aviation Regulation
• Liability For Illegal Activity
• Delict

Thomas v Commissioner for Civil Aviation (42402/2007)

Thomas v Commissioner for Civil Aviation (42402/2007) [2008] ZAGPHC 418 (29 August 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

42402/2007

Judge

K. Satchwell

The court found that the Civil Aviation Authority acted beyond its powers in purporting to revoke the applicant's instrument rating. The in-house proficiency test conducted by AirQuarius was not equivalent to an instrument rating proficiency test as defined in the Air Navigation Regulations, and there was no evidence that the regulatory requirements for such a test were met. The CAA relied on regulations that did not authorise revocation of a rating, and its subsequent attempt to justify the action under other regulations was misconceived. The procedures followed by the CAA were procedurally…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Procedural Fairness
• Aviation Regulation
• Review Of Administrative Decisions

Kriel v Beukes (346/06)

Kriel v Beukes (346/06) [2007] ZASCA 74; [2007] SCA 74 (RSA) (31 May 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

346/06

Judges

Streicher, Maya, Musi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that no claim could be enforced for payment for the illegal use of an aircraft, and rejected the counterclaim for lack of proof.

• Illegality Of Contract
• Hire Of Aircraft
• Aviation Regulation
• Counterclaim
• Par Delictum Rule
• Illegal-contract

V&A Waterfront Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another v Helicopter and Marine Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (392/2004)

V&A Waterfront Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another v Helicopter and Marine Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (392/2004) [2005] ZASCA 87; [2006] 3 All SA 523 (SCA); 2006 (1) SA 252 (SCA) (26 September 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

392/2004

Judges

Howie, Zulman, Nugent, Combrinck, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants had a clear right under the lease to insist on compliance with statutory regulations, including the Civil Aviation Authority's grounding order. The threatened operation of the helicopter in breach of the grounding order constituted a threatened breach of the lease and thus injury for purposes of a final interdict. The court rejected the respondents' collateral challenge, finding it inapplicable as the proceedings were not brought by the Authority to coerce compliance. The court further found that the first respondent bore both rights and ob…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Breach Of Lease
• Contractual Rights
• Collateral Challenge
• Specific Performance
• Aviation Regulation

V & A Waterfront Properties (PTY) Ltd and Another v Helicopter and Marine Services (PTY) Limited and Others (818/04)

V & A Waterfront Properties (PTY) Ltd and Another v Helicopter and Marine Services (PTY) Limited and Others (818/04) [2004] ZAWCHC 10; [2004] 2 All SA 664 (C) (24 February 2004)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

818/04

Judge

R.G. Comrie

The court dismissed an urgent interdict application to stop helicopter operations, holding the applicants had not shown a reasonable apprehension of injury.

• Interdict
• Contractual Compliance
• Airworthiness
• Administrative Validity
• Urgent Relief
• Aviation Regulation

Welkom Municipality v J P Masureik & H G Herman t/a Lotus Corporation and Another (412/1995)

Welkom Municipality v J P Masureik & H G Herman t/a Lotus Corporation and Another (412/1995) [1997] ZASCA 14; 1997 (3) SA 363 (SCA); [1997] 2 All SA 144 (A); (14 March 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

412/1995

Judges

Van Heerden, E M Grosskopf, Harms, Marais, Scott

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence by the Welkom Municipality for damage to an aircraft at the aerodrome.

• Negligence
• Aquilian Action
• Aviation Regulation
• Duty Of Care
• Delict
• Aquilian-action