Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
5 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional Law [2024] ZAEC 13

Giving Foundation v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Another (0018/24EC)

Giving Foundation v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Another (0018/24EC) [2024] ZAEC 13 (13 May 2024)

Court
Electoral Court
Case number
0018/24EC
Judges
Modiba, Steyn, Yacoob

The Electoral Court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the President has fulfilled his constitutional obligation under section 49(2) of the Constitution, as this issue falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court in terms of section 167(4)(e). The relief sought by the Foundation is premised on a finding that the proclamation is unlawful and invalid due to alleged non-compliance with section 49(2), but this is not a determination the Electoral Court is empowered to make. The Foundation's arguments regarding alternative jurisdictional gateways are unpersuasive, and t…

Source excerpt

  • Exclusive Jurisdiction
  • Electoral Proclamation
  • Constitutional Obligation
  • Just And Equitable Relief
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2023] ZACC 14

Mogale and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 73/22)

Mogale and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 73/22) [2023] ZACC 14; 2023 (9) BCLR 1099 (CC); 2023 (6) SA 58 (CC) (30 May 2023)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 73/22
Judges
Maya DCJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Makgoka AJ, Mathopo J, Potterill AJ, Rogers J, Theron J

The Constitutional Court found that Parliament and the provincial legislatures failed to fulfil their constitutional obligation to reasonably facilitate public involvement in passing the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act. The Court identified numerous and material deficiencies in the public participation process, including inadequate notice, lack of pre-hearing education, inaccessible venues, insufficient communication and translation of the Bill, prioritisation of traditional leaders over ordinary community members, and inaccurate or incomplete reporting of public input. These failures…

Source excerpt

  • Public Participation
  • Legislative Process
  • Declaration Of Invalidity
  • Traditional Leadership
  • Constitutional Obligation
  • Suspension Of Invalidity
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2019] ZAGPPHC 375

Rakgase and Another v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Another (33497/2018)

Rakgase and Another v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Another (33497/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 375; [2019] 4 All SA 511 (GP); 2020 (1) SA 605 (GP) (4 September 2019)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
33497/2018
Judge
Davis

The court found that the Deputy Director-General's decision not to sell the farm to the applicant but to offer only a long-term lease was procedurally unfair, unreasonable, irrational, and in breach of constitutional obligations. The applicant had a legitimate expectation to purchase the farm, supported by formal approvals and repeated assurances from state officials. The DDG failed to provide reasons for the adverse decision, did not afford the applicant an opportunity to be heard, and relied on policies that were either not applicable or not in force at the relevant time. The court held tha…

Source excerpt

  • Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
  • Legitimate Expectation
  • Land Redistribution
  • Security Of Tenure
  • Constitutional Obligation
  • Irrationality
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2017] ZAGPJHC 9

Mahapa v Minister of Higher Education and Another (2017/01217)

Mahapa v Minister of Higher Education and Another (2017/01217) [2017] ZAGPJHC 9; [2017] 2 All SA 254 (GJ) (7 February 2017)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2017/01217
Judge
M M MABESELE

Section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution does not impose an immediate obligation on the state to provide funding for tertiary education. The right to further education is subject to progressive realisation through reasonable measures, unlike the right to basic education, which is immediately enforceable. The applicant's argument that the state must secure funds for his tertiary studies cannot stand, as the constitutional obligation is limited to making further education progressively available and accessible, not to guaranteeing individual funding. The application was dismissed as the relief soug…

Source excerpt

  • Right To Education
  • Progressive Realisation
  • Constitutional Obligation
  • Section 29
  • State Funding
  • Urgency In Applications
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2009] ZACC 25

Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Chonco and Others (CCT 42/09)

Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Chonco and Others (CCT 42/09) [2009] ZACC 25; 2010 (1) SACR 325 (CC) ; 2010 (2) BCLR 140 (CC) ; 2010 (4) SA 82 (CC) (30 September 2009)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 42/09
Judges
Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J

The Constitutional Court held that the power to decide on applications for presidential pardon under section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution vests solely in the President as Head of State. The preliminary process of receiving and examining applications for pardon falls within the President's auxiliary powers and does not constitute a national executive function under section 85(2)(e). The Minister does not incur a constitutional obligation to process such applications unless there is a written transfer of responsibility from the President, as required by the Constitution. The Minister's failure…

Source excerpt

  • Presidential Pardon
  • Separation Of Powers
  • Constitutional Obligation
  • Administrative Action
  • Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2009] ZACC 20

Women's Legal Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT13/09)

Women's Legal Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT13/09) [2009] ZACC 20; 2009 (6) SA 94 (CC) (22 July 2009)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT13/09
Judges
Cameron, Langa, Moseneke, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that the obligation to enact legislation recognising Muslim marriages is not imposed exclusively on the President or Parliament but on the state as a whole, including other organs and institutions. Therefore, the alleged failure does not fall within the Court's exclusive jurisdiction under section 167(4)(e). The application was incorrectly conceived as it bypassed other courts with constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court found that direct access was not appropriate due to the complexity of the issues, the need for factual evidence, and the benefit of…

Source excerpt

  • Exclusive Jurisdiction
  • Direct Access
  • Constitutional Obligation
  • Recognition Of Religious Marriages
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2005] ZASCA 96

King and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control and Another (561/2004)

King and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control and Another (561/2004) [2005] ZASCA 96; [2006] 1 All SA 458 (SCA); 2006 (4) BCLR 462 (SCA); 2006 (1) SA 474 (SCA) (29 September 2005)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
561/2004
Judges
Harms, Cameron, Mthiyane, Nugent, Jafta

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that it does not have jurisdiction to declare a statute invalid on the grounds that Parliament failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in the legislative process. Such jurisdiction is reserved exclusively for the Constitutional Court under section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution. The court distinguished between statutory invalidity arising from procedural prerequisites and invalidity arising from breach of constitutional obligations, finding that only the latter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional…

Source excerpt

  • Public Involvement In Legislation
  • Constitutional Obligation
  • Statutory Invalidity
  • Jurisdiction Of Courts
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.