South Africa Case Law

Special Investigating Unit v Mlangeni Brothers and Another (GP07/2021)

Special Investigating Unit v Mlangeni Brothers and Another (GP07/2021) [2022] ZAST 26 (14 November 2022)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP07/2021

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Tribunal found that the contract awarded to Mlangeni Brothers was invalid due to procurement irregularities. Applying the no profit no loss principle, the Tribunal held that Mlangeni Brothers is only entitled to recover reasonable expenses incurred in supplying PPE items to the Gauteng Department of Health, not to retain any profit. The Tribunal scrutinized the Income and Expenditure Statement submitted by Mlangeni Brothers and disallowed most claimed operating expenses, including storage, security, transportation (except R4,100), accounting, legal, financing, commission, and salary costs…

Source excerpt

• Legality Review
• Just And Equitable Relief
• Public Procurement Irregularities
• No Profit No Loss Principle
• Burden Of Proof
• Constitutional Remedies

Mvumvu and Others v Minister of Transport and Another (7490/2008)

Mvumvu and Others v Minister of Transport and Another (7490/2008) [2010] ZAWCHC 105; 2010 (12) BCLR 1324 (WCC) ; [2011] 1 All SA 90 (WCC) (28 June 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7490/2008

Judge

Bozalek

The High Court held that pre-2008 caps on certain Road Accident Fund claims were unconstitutional discrimination and qualified the remedy for pending claims.

• Equality Clause
• Road Accident Fund
• Unfair Discrimination
• Limitation Of Rights
• Constitutional Remedies
• Equality-clause

Head of Department : Mpumalanga Department of Education and Another v Hoërskool Ermelo and Another (CCT40/09)

Head of Department : Mpumalanga Department of Education and Another v Hoërskool Ermelo and Another (CCT40/09) [2009] ZACC 32; 2010 (2) SA 415 (CC) ; 2010 (3) BCLR 177 (CC) (14 October 2009)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT40/09

Judges

Moseneke DCJ, Langa CJ, Cameron J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J

The Constitutional Court held that, while the Head of Department has the power under section 22(1) of the Schools Act to withdraw a governing body's function to determine language policy on reasonable grounds, this power is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with constitutional values and procedural fairness. The Court found that the Head of Department unlawfully conflated the powers under sections 22 and 25 by appointing an interim committee to determine language policy, as section 25 only applies where a governing body has ceased or failed to perform its functions, which was n…

Source excerpt

• Language Policy In Education
• Section 29 Right To Education
• School Governance
• Administrative Reasonableness
• Procedural Fairness
• Constitutional Remedies

Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 41/08)

Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 41/08) [2008] ZACC 19; 2009 (1) SA 287 (CC); 2009 (2) BCLR 136 (CC) (22 October 2008)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 41/08

Judges

Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that it is not appropriate to intervene in the legislative process at this stage. The applicant failed to demonstrate material and irreversible harm that could not be remedied after the legislation is enacted. The Court emphasised that Parliament may amend or reject the proposed Bills, and the content and effect of the legislation cannot be determined until the process is complete. The separation of powers requires courts to refrain from interfering with the autonomy of the executive and legislature in the law-making process, except in truly exceptional circumsta…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Powers
• Judicial Review
• Legality Principle
• Direct Access
• Parliamentary Process
• Constitutional Remedies

National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v Zuma and Another (639/06)

National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v Zuma and Another (639/06) [2007] ZASCA 137; [2008] 1 All SA 197 (SCA); 2008 (1) SACR 298 (SCA) (8 November 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

639/06

Judges

Farlam, Nugent, Cloete, Ponnan, Mlambo

The majority held that the search warrants were invalid because they failed to convey intelligibly to the searched persons the ambit of the authorised search, lacking sufficient particularity regarding the offences, timeframes, and persons suspected. The warrants' general terms and the inclusion of a 'catch-all' paragraph rendered them impermissibly vague and overbroad, violating the constitutional right to privacy. The court found that the statutory requirements of section 29 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act were not met, as the warrants did not specify the nature of the investigati…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Warrant Validity
• Right To Privacy
• Attorney Client Privilege
• Constitutional Remedies
• Admissibility Of Evidence

Tswelopele Non-Profit Organisation and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (303/2006)

Tswelopele Non-Profit Organisation and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (303/2006) [2007] ZASCA 70; [2007] SCA 70 (RSA) ; 2007 (6) SA 511 (SCA) (30 May 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

303/2006

Judges

Scott JA, Cameron JA, Nugent JA, Maya JA, Snyders AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the eviction and destruction of the occupiers' shelters were unlawful and violated constitutional and statutory rights. The ordinary remedies of damages, criminal prosecution, or interdict were inadequate to vindicate the rights infringed. The mandament van spolie, as received in South African law, is a possessory remedy and does not extend to mandatory reconstruction of destroyed property. However, the Constitution empowers and requires courts to craft effective remedies for constitutional violations. In this case, the appropriate remedy was to order the…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Eviction
• Mandament Van Spolie
• Constitutional Remedies
• Right To Housing
• Restoration Of Possession
• Dignity

S v Joors (0033806)

S v Joors (0033806) [2003] ZAWCHC 59; [2003] 4 All SA 628 (C); 2004 (2) BCLR 217 (C); 2004 (1) SACR 494 (C) (1 November 2003)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

0033806

Judges

A.G. Binns-Ward, W.G. Thring

The court found that the magistrate's conduct during the trial, particularly her adversarial and hectoring questioning of the accused, transgressed established limitations on judicial intervention and compromised the appearance and reality of impartiality. The complainant's evidence was inconsistent, incomplete, and failed to provide a reliable basis for conviction, especially given the absence of medical corroboration and the plausible alternative explanations offered by the accused. The magistrate failed to properly apply the cautionary rule for single-witness evidence and gave undue weight…

Source excerpt

• Automatic Review
• Fair Trial Rights
• Judicial Impartiality
• Magistrates Court Procedure
• Constitutional Remedies