South Africa Case Law

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Chairman of the National Building Regulations Review Board and Others (58705/2015)

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Chairman of the National Building Regulations Review Board and Others (58705/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 580 (29 June 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

58705/2015

Judge

SA Thobane

Section 9 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, to the extent that it empowers the National Building Regulations Review Board to exercise appellate power over municipal planning decisions, is unconstitutional and invalid. The Constitution reserves municipal planning as an exclusive function of local government, and national or provincial entities may not override or replace municipal decisions in this domain. The Review Board's decision to entertain the appeal of the fourth to ninth respondents was erroneous, as they lacked locus standi, not being parties to the ori…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Planning
• Appellate Jurisdiction
• Constitutionality Of Legislation
• Locus Standi
• Review Of Administrative Action

Scholes and Another v Minister of Mineral Resources (50642/2015)

Scholes and Another v Minister of Mineral Resources (50642/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 297 (3 May 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50642/2015

Judge

C.P. Rabie

The court found that the Chamber application and the Scholes application, although arising from similar factual backgrounds and statutory interpretation issues, pursue fundamentally different objectives and relief. The Chamber application seeks narrow declaratory relief to clarify the implementation of the Charter and the Act, while the Scholes application challenges the constitutionality of the Charters, ministerial conduct, and legislative provisions, seeking broad and far-reaching remedies. Consolidation would result in substantial prejudice and inconvenience to the Chamber, including dela…

Source excerpt

• Consolidation Of Applications
• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act
• Locus Standi
• Constitutionality Of Legislation
• Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment
• Declaratory Relief

Workforce Group (Pty) Ltd v Motor Industry Bargaining Council and Others (20076/2014)

Workforce Group (Pty) Ltd v Motor Industry Bargaining Council and Others (20076/2014) [2015] ZASCA 66 (15 May 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20076/2014

Judges

Navsa, Ponnan, Shongwe, Wallis, Zondi

The Supreme Court of Appeal struck an appeal from the roll as academic after legislative amendments and expiry of the collective agreement, and ordered the appellant to pay costs.

• Extension Of Collective Agreements
• Temporary Employment Services
• Constitutionality Of Legislation
• Costs In Academic Appeals
• Academic-appeal
• Costs

Mercer and Another (CCT31/02), Ex parte

Mercer and Another (CCT31/02), Ex parte [2002] ZACC 23; 2003 (1) SA 203 (CC) (28 October 2002)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT31/02

Judges

Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that, despite the constitutional issues raised regarding equality and environmental rights, it would be premature to hear the matter before the High Court has adjudicated the appeal and constitutional challenge. The applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting direct access. The application for direct access was therefore refused.

Source excerpt

• Right To Equality
• Environmental Rights
• Direct Access
• Constitutionality Of Legislation

Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education (CCT13/98)

Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education (CCT13/98) [1998] ZACC 16; 1999 (2) SA 83; 1998 (12) BCLR 1449 (14 October 1998)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT13/98

Judges

Langa DP, Chaskalson P, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J

The Constitutional Court refused direct access, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying departure from ordinary procedures. The Court emphasized that direct access is reserved for extraordinary cases and that the High Courts and Supreme Court of Appeal have constitutional jurisdiction to determine the validity of legislation. The urgency claimed by the applicant was not substantiated, as the Act had been in force for eighteen months without evidence of irreparable harm or breakdown of discipline. The Court found that the exclusion of other courts…

Source excerpt

• Direct Access
• Constitutionality Of Legislation
• Corporal Punishment
• Freedom Of Religion
• Independent Schools
• Urgency And Public Interest