South Africa Case Law

Abraham and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (A5053/2021; A5054/2021; A5055/2021)

Abraham and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (A5053/2021; A5054/2021; A5055/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 253; 2023 (5) SA 178 (GJ) (14 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5053/2021; A5054/2021; A5055/2021

Judges

Sutherland DJP, Wilson J, Dodson AJ

The court held that the lawfulness of detention under section 34 of the Immigration Act is extinguished when the applicability of the Refugees Act is triggered, which occurs upon an illegal foreigner expressing a desire to apply for asylum, not only upon formal submission of an application. The Refugees Act, and specifically section 2, overrides any contrary provision in the Immigration Act or regulations. The requirement in regulation 8(3) for showing 'good cause' is part of the information-gathering process and does not constitute a condition precedent to applying for asylum. Regulation 8(4…

Source excerpt

• Immigration Detention
• Refugee Status Determination
• Non Refoulement
• Ultra Vires Regulations
• Constitutional Supremacy

King N.O. and Others v De Jager and Others (CCT 315/18)

King N.O. and Others v De Jager and Others (CCT 315/18) [2021] ZACC 4; 2021 (5) BCLR 449 (CC); 2021 (4) SA 1 (CC) (19 February 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 315/18

Judges

Mogoeng CJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Victor AJ

The Constitutional Court held that clause 7 of the will, which excluded female descendants from inheriting fideicommissary property, constitutes unfair discrimination on the basis of gender and is contrary to public policy as infused by constitutional values. The Court found that freedom of testation, while protected, is not absolute and must yield to the foundational constitutional values of equality and non-sexism. The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act specifically prohibits practices that prevent women from inheriting family property. The Court rejected the…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Freedom Of Testation
• Gender Discrimination
• Public Policy In Testate Succession
• Fideicommissum
• Constitutional Supremacy

Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service v Public Protector and Others (84074/19)

Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service v Public Protector and Others (84074/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 33; [2020] 2 All SA 427 (GP); 2020 (4) SA 133 (GP); 82 SATC 279 (23 March 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

84074/19

Judge

P M Mabuse

The court held that SARS officials are both permitted and required by law to withhold taxpayer information from the Public Protector under the 'just cause' proviso in section 11(3) of the Public Protector Act, read with section 69(1) of the Tax Administration Act. The Public Protector's subpoena powers do not extend to taxpayer information, as her powers are regulated and limited by national legislation. The Public Protector acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, and in bad faith by ignoring legal advice, failing to seek a court order, and insisting on disclosure contrary to statutory prohibitions.…

Source excerpt

• Taxpayer Confidentiality
• Public Protector Powers
• Just Cause
• Subpoena Powers
• Constitutional Supremacy
• Costs De Bonis Propriis

Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others; Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others (2018/16; 11429/2018)

Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others; Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others (2018/16; 11429/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 64 (5 March 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/16; 11429/2018

Judge

Ingrid Opperman

The court found that Eskom and its CEO breached the 11 December 2018 orders by interrupting electricity supply to the municipalities and Pioneer Foods, including interruptions due to load shedding. The orders were clear, binding, and covered all forms of interruption, and Eskom's arguments regarding impossibility, licence obligations, or pending appeals did not constitute valid legal defences to non-compliance. The court emphasised that court orders must be obeyed until set aside, and that constitutional supremacy requires organs of state to comply with judicial authority. However, the court…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Interim Interdict
• Electricity Supply
• Constitutional Supremacy
• Municipal Services

Democratic Alliance v Minister of International Relations and Co-operation and Others; Engels and Another v Minister of International Relations and Co-operation and Another (58755/17)

Democratic Alliance v Minister of International Relations and Co-operation and Others; Engels and Another v Minister of International Relations and Co-operation and Another (58755/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 534; [2018] 4 All SA 131 (GP); 2018 (6) SA 109 (GP); 2018 (2) SACR 654 (GP) (30 July 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

58755/17

Judge

Vally

The court found that there is no settled customary international law norm granting automatic immunity rationae personae to the spouse of a head of state. Even if such immunity existed under international law, South African law, through the Foreign States Immunities Act, specifically excludes immunity in cases involving personal injury. The Minister's decision to confer or recognise immunity on Dr Mugabe was not supported by law, was inconsistent with the Constitution, and was therefore unlawful. The administrative act conferring immunity remains valid until set aside, but must be reviewed and…

Source excerpt

• Diplomatic Immunity
• Customary International Law
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Constitutional Supremacy
• Gender Based Violence
• Judicial Review

Kgoshikgolo and Another v Commission on Traditional Leadership Dispute and Claims and Others (55035/2012)

Kgoshikgolo and Another v Commission on Traditional Leadership Dispute and Claims and Others (55035/2012) [2018] ZAGPPHC 969 (28 March 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

55035/2012

Judge

Mlambo JP

The High Court dismissed a review of the Commission’s Bapedi kingship findings, holding that res judicata did not bar the Commission’s constitutional mandate.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Customary Law
• Traditional Leadership Disputes
• Res Judicata
• Constitutional Supremacy
• Res-judicata

State Information Technology Agency Soc Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd (641/2015)

State Information Technology Agency Soc Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd (641/2015) [2016] ZASCA 143; [2016] 4 All SA 842 (SCA); 2017 (2) SA 63 (SCA) (30 September 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

641/2015

Judges

Cachalia, Bosielo, Tshiqi, Van der Merwe, Dlodlo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) applies when an organ of state seeks to set aside its own administrative decisions. SITA's decision to award the contract to Gijima constituted administrative action and was subject to review under PAJA. SITA failed to comply with the 180-day time limit prescribed by s 7 of PAJA and did not apply for condonation under s 9. The attempt to bypass PAJA by framing the application as a legality review was impermissible, as PAJA is intended to be the exclusive pathway for reviewing administrative action. Even i…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Procurement
• Legality Review
• Constitutional Supremacy
• Unreasonable Delay
• Contract Invalidity

T v T and Others (13040/2013)

T v T and Others (13040/2013) [2015] ZAGPJHC 131; [2015] 3 All SA 631 (GJ) (19 June 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13040/2013

Judge

Mokgoatlheng

High Court rescinds adoption orders where the children’s best interests and the constitutional primacy of child welfare outweighed the Children’s Act time limit.

• Rescission Of Adoption Order
• Best Interests Of Child
• Prescription Period
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Constitutional Supremacy
• Rescission-of-adoption-order

K C Productions CC v MEC for Education and Another (439/03)

K C Productions CC v MEC for Education and Another (439/03) [2004] ZANWHC 40 (9 December 2004)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

439/03

Judge

R D Mokgoatlheng

The court set aside the cancellation of a public tender contract, holding that the decision was administrative action and had to be procedurally fair.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Public Tender Cancellation
• Legitimate Expectation
• Constitutional Supremacy
• Administrative-law

S v Jafta (CA&R 490/02)

S v Jafta (CA&R 490/02) [2003] ZAECHC 18; 2005 (1) SA 108 (E); 2004 (2) SACR 103 (E) (10 April 2003)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

CA&R 490/02

Judges

L.E. Leach, J.D. Pickering, A.R. Erasmus

The majority held that the Constitutional Court's declaration of invalidity of sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act did not operate retrospectively. The suspension of the declaration meant that those sections remained valid and enforceable until 28 May 2001. Appeals finalized before that date required compliance with the leave to appeal provisions. The High Court lacked jurisdiction to vary the effect of the Constitutional Court's order, and only the court making the declaration could issue orders under section 172(1)(b). Accordingly, the appeals of Jafta, Ndondo, and Mcontana…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Retrospective Invalidity
• Constitutional Supremacy
• Minimum Sentencing
• Judicial Review
• Procedural Fairness