Ingerop South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others (11175/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 336 (6 August 2025)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
11175/2024
Judges
Lekhukeni, Sipunzi
High Court held it lacked PAJA jurisdiction over a tender review and, in any event, the application was filed out of time without adequate condonation.
Chaane v Chaane and Others (2784/2020) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 41 (16 May 2025)
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Case number
2784/2020
Judge
H F Fourie
PAJA review of traditional leadership decisions was dismissed for late filing and inadequate condonation, with the Court finding no basis to extend time.
Bottom Line Solutions (Pty) Ltd trading as BLS Portco SA v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (27441/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 476 (12 May 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
27441/2020
Judge
Khashane La M Manamela
The Court found that BLS, as a licensed clearing agent, did not satisfy the jurisdictional facts under section 99(2) of the Customs and Excise Act to escape liability for customs duty, VAT, penalties, and interest. BLS failed to provide valid proof of export, did not notify SARS of non-fulfilment, and did not take all reasonable steps to prevent diversion. The acquittal documents submitted were found invalid, and SARS' systems reflected the goods as unacquitted and not exported. The improper preparation of customs documents by BLS facilitated the diversion of goods. The Court held that SARS'…
FAWU obo Zulu and Others v Grobler N.O (D26/2021) [2025] ZALCD 16 (4 April 2025)
Court
Labour Court Durban
Case number
D26/2021
Judge
K Allen-Yaman
The court found that the delay in delivering the record was significant but largely attributable to failures by the second respondent and miscommunications among FAWU officials, not the employees. The employees demonstrated active interest in pursuing the review, and their prospects of success were compelling, given the arbitrator's reliance on unsworn statements and failure to consider relevant defences and evidence of inconsistent discipline. The interests of justice required reinstatement of the review application and condonation for the late delivery of the record and institution of the r…
Sekgopo v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others (5799/2018 ; 2950/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 9 (21 January 2025)
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Case number
5799/2018 ; 2950/2024
Judge
Naude–Odendaal
The court found that the Premier's decision not to approve the Kgatla Commission's recommendation was irrational, arbitrary, and not connected to the evidence or relevant customary law. The Premier failed to consider the findings of specialist bodies and previous administrative decisions. However, the court held that it was not in a position to substitute its own decision for that of the Premier regarding the recognition of William as Senior Traditional Leader, as the identification of the rightful heir requires determination by the Royal Family in accordance with customary law, and there is…
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai's of South Africa v Valuation Appeal Board and Others (2022/028526) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1334 (17 December 2024)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
2022/028526
Judge
Lenyai
The court found that the applicant challenged the wrong decision. The change in property category from 'religious' to 'agricultural residential' was made by the Municipal Valuer following an objection under section 53(1) of the Rates Act, not by the Valuation Appeal Board (VAB) during its compulsory review under section 52. Section 52 only authorizes the VAB to review changes in property value exceeding 10%, not to alter property categories. The applicant's reliance on correspondence from municipal officials was misplaced, as such letters did not constitute formal decisions of the VAB. The co…
Ntshangase v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (D8583/2019) [2024] ZAKZDHC 81 (31 July 2024)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
D8583/2019
Judge
Henriques
High Court review over traditional leadership recognition dismissed; the Premier’s rejection of the Commission’s recommendation was upheld and the later recognition process was found premature.
Isimangaliso Wetland Park Authority v Sibiya and Others (16706/2022P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 38 (16 April 2024)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
16706/2022P
Judge
Mossop
The applicant failed to provide a comprehensive and satisfactory explanation for the delay of several years in instituting the legality review. The explanation offered was brief, incomplete, and did not cover the entire period of delay, as required by law. The attempt to shift the burden of explanation to the deponent was rejected, as the applicant itself is responsible for accounting for the delay. No evidence of malfeasance or concealment was presented, and no condonation for the late review was sought. The delay was found to be unreasonable and prejudicial to the respondents. The threshold…
Van Der Vyver Transport (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Labour and Others (A128/2023; 5842/2020) [2024] ZAWCHC 62; [2024] 2 All SA 581 (WCC) (29 February 2024)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
A128/2023; 5842/2020
Judges
Binns-Ward, Slingers, Nziweni
The majority held that the appellant's review application was fatally late, having been brought outside the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA, and that no proper application for condonation was made. The court found that the appellant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay, with significant periods of inaction unexplained. Furthermore, the appellant did not exhaust the internal remedy under section 91 of COIDA, nor did it demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying exemption. The majority concluded that the interests of justice did not warrant condonation, and…
Source excerpt
Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
Failure To Exercise Discretion
Condonation For Late Review
Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
