South Africa Case Law

Ndudane and Others v Financial Intelligence Centre (EC/01/22)

Ndudane and Others v Financial Intelligence Centre (EC/01/22) [2024] ZAWCHC 38; 2024 (5) SA 549 (WCC) (13 February 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

EC/01/22

Judge

Thulare

The applicants established a legal right to access the information held by the FIC under section 32(1) of the Constitution and sections 40 and 41 of FICA. The court found that the Equality Court has the power to grant interlocutory orders for access to information necessary for the determination of the main complaint. The information sought is material to the applicants' allegations of unfair discrimination and unequal treatment by the banks. The FIC's objections regarding lack of legal entitlement, non-compliance with PAIA, and non-joinder of affected entities were rejected. The court held t…

Source excerpt

• Financial Intelligence Centre Act
• Access To Information
• Equality Court Procedure
• Unfair Discrimination
• Risk Management Compliance
• Constitutional Right To Equality

Ramonetha v Chairperson of Case Management Committe (Leeuwkop Med C) and Others (2015/32914)

Ramonetha v Chairperson of Case Management Committe (Leeuwkop Med C) and Others (2015/32914) [2016] ZAGPJHC 120 (13 May 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2015/32914

Judge

WHG van der Linde

The High Court held that a 2005 Presidential remission applied to lifers, advancing Ernest Ramonetha’s parole eligibility date by six months.

• Presidential Remission Of Sentence
• Parole Eligibility
• Correctional Services Act
• Constitutional Right To Equality
• Presidential-remission-of-sentence
• Parole-eligibility

Solidarity and Others v SA Police Services and Others (JS469/12)

Solidarity and Others v SA Police Services and Others (JS469/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 266 (13 August 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS469/12

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court, after considering the submissions and relevant legal principles, found that although most legal arguments have been settled by higher courts, the implementation of the Collective Agreement as an equality-seeking measure remains susceptible to constitutional challenge. The competing interests between SAPS and its members in implementing the Agreement and the applicants' constitutional rights to equality warrant further consideration. The judge, reflecting dispassionately on the judgment and the issues raised, concluded that there are reasonable prospects that the Labour Appea…

Source excerpt

• Employment Equity
• Affirmative Action Measures
• Unfair Discrimination
• Collective Agreement
• Constitutional Right To Equality

Blastrite (Pty) Ltd v Genpaco Ltd; In re: Genpaco Ltd v Blastrite (Pty) Ltd (4530/15)

Blastrite (Pty) Ltd v Genpaco Ltd; In re: Genpaco Ltd v Blastrite (Pty) Ltd (4530/15) [2015] ZAWCHC 76; 2016 (2) SA 622 (WCC) (1 June 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4530/15

Judge

Schippers

The court found that the respondent, a peregrinus, had instituted proceedings in South Africa and previously furnished security for costs. The applicant sought an increase in security due to the arbitration proceeding. The respondent was able to provide the additional security and would not be prevented from pursuing its claim. The court held that the practice of requiring security for costs from a peregrinus is rational, serves a legitimate purpose, and does not amount to unfair discrimination or violate the right to equality under the Constitution. The discretion to order security must be e…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Arbitration Act
• Peregrinus Litigant
• Constitutional Right To Equality

Mgolozeli v Gauteng Department of Finance and Another (JS704/11)

Mgolozeli v Gauteng Department of Finance and Another (JS704/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 466; [2015] 3 BLLR 308 (LC); (2015) 36 ILJ 1602 (LC) (25 November 2014)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS704/11

Judge

Modise

The Labour Court held that refusing to appoint a male candidate because of gender imbalance, without a valid employment equity plan, was unfair discrimination.

• Employment Equity Act
• Unfair Discrimination
• Affirmative Action
• Gender Discrimination
• Employment Equity Plan
• Constitutional Right To Equality