South Africa Case Law

Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (14238/21)

Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (14238/21) [2025] ZAGPPHC 467 (7 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

14238/21

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that it retained jurisdiction to grant the extension of the suspension order, as the order dated 16 January 2025 was not challenged on appeal and remained in force at the time of the extension application. The applicant's contention that the court's authority had lapsed was rejected in light of the unique factual context and the absence of any appeal against the operative order. The court further held that no other court would reach a different conclusion on the grounds of appeal raised, as all relevant issues had been considered and the interests of justice were not compromis…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Court Jurisdiction
• Costs Award
• Biowatch Principle

Stonehill Property Fund Proprietary Limited v Shongwe and Another (Leave to Appeal) (20421/2024)

Stonehill Property Fund Proprietary Limited v Shongwe and Another (Leave to Appeal) (20421/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 413 (6 December 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20421/2024

Judge

Nziweni

The High Court dismissed Stonehill’s application for leave to appeal, holding that the joinder and costs findings were justified and that no reasonable prospects of success were shown.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Order
• Interdictory Relief
• Biowatch Principle
• Leave-to-appeal

Kingscott v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (Leave to Appeal) (034689/2023)

Kingscott v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (Leave to Appeal) (034689/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1260 (5 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

034689/2023

Judge

Moshoana

The Court found that the applicant failed to meet the heightened test for leave to appeal as required by section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The alleged error regarding the quotation of section 19(4) of the Immigration Act was not material to the Minister's decision, as the Minister did not rely on the contested text in making the administrative decision. The regulation in question did not reference 'candidate engineer,' and the Minister was not materially influenced by any error of law. The Biowatch principle was found not to apply automatically to all PAJA or legality reviews, and the ap…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Administrative Action
• Error Of Law
• Costs Award
• Biowatch Principle
• Immigration Act Interpretation

Sanoj Jeewan v Transnet SOC Limited and Another (696/2023)

Sanoj Jeewan v Transnet SOC Limited and Another (696/2023) [2024] ZASCA 108 (4 July 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

696/2023

Judges

Molemela, Weiner, Molefe, Koen, Seegobin

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's claim for contractual and delictual damages based on unlawful termination of employment arose on the date of dismissal, 14 May 2010. The cause of action was complete at that time, as the appellant was aware of the alleged unfairness and the identity of the debtor. The subsequent referral to arbitration did not interrupt or delay prescription for the common law claim, as the arbitration concerned unfair dismissal under the Labour Relations Act, not damages for breach of contract. The claim was thus prescribed under section 11(d) of the Pres…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 11d
• Unlawful Termination
• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Res Judicata
• Biowatch Principle

Afriforum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and Others (A48/2023)

Afriforum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and Others (A48/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 96 (28 March 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A48/2023

Judges

Mbhele, Reinders, Chesiwe

The appeal succeeded because the court a quo failed to properly apply the Biowatch principle to the facts. The appellant acted bona fide in seeking to protect constitutional rights relating to access to clean water, and there was no evidence of frivolous, vexatious, or mala fide conduct. The urgency of the matter was ongoing due to the continued lack of clean water. The court held that imposing costs on unsuccessful constitutional litigants may deter public interest litigation and undermine constitutional rights. Therefore, the costs order against the appellant was set aside and replaced with…

Source excerpt

• Costs In Constitutional Litigation
• Biowatch Principle
• Urgent Application
• Access To Water
• Judicial Discretion

Manaka v University of Witwatersrand (021837-2023)

Manaka v University of Witwatersrand (021837-2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 179 (29 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/021837

Judge

Adams

The court found that the applicant raised substantial issues regarding the appropriateness of the costs order, particularly since the respondent did not seek costs or had abandoned the prayer for costs. The Biowatch principle was relevant as the applicant was vindicating constitutional rights. The documentary evidence suggested merit in the applicant's claim, and the court concluded that there were reasonable prospects that another court could reach a different conclusion on the costs order. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.

Source excerpt

• Costs Order
• Leave To Appeal
• Biowatch Principle
• Constitutional Rights Enforcement

Slaughter and Others v Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent and Another (Leave to Appeal) (36596/2016)

Slaughter and Others v Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent and Another (Leave to Appeal) (36596/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 67 (26 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

36596/2016

Judge

LG Kilmartin

The court found that the costs order under case no. 39077/2016 arose from a separate contempt application and is not directly linked to the ongoing review application under case no. 36596/2016. The applicants failed to demonstrate any real and substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would result from the execution of the cost order. There was no evidence that the execution would prevent the applicants from accessing the courts or prosecuting the review application. The applicants did not provide financial details to substantiate claims of prejudice. The court found no basis to deprive…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Stay Of Execution
• Costs Award
• Superior Courts Act
• Biowatch Principle

South African Human Rights Commission and Others v Madibeng Local Municipality and Others (21099/2017)

South African Human Rights Commission and Others v Madibeng Local Municipality and Others (21099/2017) [2024] ZAGPPHC 43 (17 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21099/2017

Judge

PD Phahlane

The court found that the Municipality failed to meet the requirements for rescission under both Rule 42(1)(a) and the common law. The Municipality was properly served and elected not to participate, thus failing the 'absence' requirement. The policies relied upon by the Municipality were enacted after the original order and were irrelevant to the period in dispute. No reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the rescission application was provided, and the defences raised did not constitute a bona fide defence with prospects of success. The application for condonation was refused. In…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Right Of Access To Water
• Contempt Of Court
• Biowatch Principle
• Municipal Service Delivery

Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo and Another v Klipplaat Landgoed (Pty) Ltd and Another (LCC46/2010)

Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo and Another v Klipplaat Landgoed (Pty) Ltd and Another (LCC46/2010) [2023] ZALCC 38 (3 November 2023)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC46/2010

Judge

Ncube

The Land Claims Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a costs order, finding no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reason to appeal.

• Costs Award
• Judicial Discretion
• Constitutional Litigation
• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Biowatch Principle
• Leave To Appeal Threshold

Motloung and Another v Commissioner South African Revenue Service and Others (5492/2021)

Motloung and Another v Commissioner South African Revenue Service and Others (5492/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 254 (23 June 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5492/2021

Judge

N.M. Mbhele

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The understatement penalty imposed by SARS is administrative, not criminal, and section 35(3) of the Constitution does not apply to taxpayers subject to such penalties. The exclusion of understatement penalties from certain provisions of the Tax Administration Act does not alter their administrative nature. The applicants did not raise genuine constitutional issues, and their reliance on the Biowatch principle was misplaced, as their litigation was not substantive or genuine in constitutional…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Understatement Penalty
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Administrative Penalties
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation
• Biowatch Principle