South Africa Case Law

Sefateng Chrome Mine (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (36955/2022)

Sefateng Chrome Mine (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (36955/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 622 (9 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

36955/2022

Judge

S Van Aswegen

The High Court reviewed and set aside a mining right granted to Lethabo, finding a moratorium, lack of consultation, and other MPRDA defects.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act
• Mining Rights
• Consultation Requirements
• Moratorium On Mining Rights
• Security Of Tenure

Rautenbach and Others v Governing Body of die Hoerskool DF Malan and Another (073/2024)

Rautenbach and Others v Governing Body of die Hoerskool DF Malan and Another (073/2024) [2025] ZASCA 78 (4 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

073/2024

Judges

Mokgohloa, Mbatha, Weiner, Smith, Modiba

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the governing body of a public school has implied statutory power under the Schools Act to change the school's name, as part of its governance functions and fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the school and its stakeholders. The consultative process adopted was comprehensive, rational, and followed expert advice, ensuring broad stakeholder participation and fair opportunity for input. The decision to change the school's name was rationally connected to the information before the governing body and aligned with the school's values of inclusivit…

Source excerpt

• Schools Act
• Ultra Vires
• Procedural Fairness
• Rationality Review
• Consultation Requirements
• Implied Powers

E.TV (Pty) Limited and Others v Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies and Others (2025/008928)

E.TV (Pty) Limited and Others v Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies and Others (2025/008928) [2025] ZAGPPHC 321 (27 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025/008928

Judge

BAQWA

The Court found that the decision to set the analogue switch-off date for 31 March 2025 was taken by Cabinet, not the Minister, contrary to statutory and constitutional requirements. The Minister failed to consult stakeholders regarding the actual proposed date, as required by law and the Constitutional Court's precedent. The evidence showed that hundreds of thousands of households would be left without access to television, violating their rights to freedom of expression and equality. The Minister's justification for the limitation of rights was found to be irrational and retrogressive. The…

Source excerpt

• Analogue Switch Off
• Digital Migration
• Freedom Of Expression
• Consultation Requirements
• Legitimate Expectation
• Interim Interdict

Mavuso and Another v Commission for Gender Equality (05581/23)

Mavuso and Another v Commission for Gender Equality (05581/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 166 (17 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

05581/23

Judge

LG Kilmartin

The court found that the applicants' employment contracts expressly entitled them to a 17% employer pension allowance, and the respondent's unilateral withdrawal of this benefit constituted a breach of contract. The respondent failed to conduct any meaningful consultation prior to the withdrawal, and the purported ex post facto consultation two years later did not cure the procedural defect. The court rejected the respondent's prescription argument, holding that only the earliest months could be prescribed due to the continuing nature of the debt. The court further held that section 3 of Act…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Unilateral Change Of Terms
• Consultation Requirements
• Prescription
• Jurisdiction
• Specific Performance

Supercare Services Group (Pty) Ltd v Olota N.O and Others (JR1121/13)

Supercare Services Group (Pty) Ltd v Olota N.O and Others (JR1121/13) [2025] ZALCJHB 19 (15 January 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1121/13

Judge

Daniels

The Labour Court upheld an award finding that Ms Rakodi had been demoted without proper consultation, and that the demotion was an unfair labour practice.

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Demotion
• Consultation Requirements
• Arbitration Review
• Consent And Waiver
• Unfair-labour-practice

Ntshangase v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (D8583/2019)

Ntshangase v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (D8583/2019) [2024] ZAKZDHC 81 (31 July 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D8583/2019

Judge

Henriques

High Court review over traditional leadership recognition dismissed; the Premier’s rejection of the Commission’s recommendation was upheld and the later recognition process was found premature.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Traditional Leadership Disputes
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Customary Law Recognition
• Condonation For Late Review
• Consultation Requirements

Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others v Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others (58/2023; 71/2023; 351/2023)

Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others v Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others (58/2023; 71/2023; 351/2023) [2024] ZASCA 84; 2024 (5) SA 38 (SCA) (3 June 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

58/2023; 71/2023; 351/2023

Judges

Ponnan, Mocumie, Matojane, Smith, Seegobin

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the consultation process preceding the grant and renewal of the exploration right was inadequate and failed to reach affected communities in a meaningful way, particularly due to inaccessible language and media. The Minister did not provide clear notice of the decisions or inform affected persons of their rights to appeal or request reasons. The respondents did not unreasonably delay in launching the review, as they only became aware of the decisions in late 2021. The High Court was correct to exempt the respondents from exhausting internal remedies, giv…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Public Participation
• Exploration Rights
• Just And Equitable Relief
• Procedural Fairness
• Consultation Requirements

Solidarity obo Members v Sahara African Living (Pty) Ltd (JS829/21)

Solidarity obo Members v Sahara African Living (Pty) Ltd (JS829/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 166 (17 April 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS829/21

Judge

M Makhura

The court found that the respondent breached the employment contracts by unilaterally reducing salaries and implementing lay-offs without consultation or consent, in violation of the non-variation clause and section 34 of the BCEA. The employees did not tacitly consent or acquiesce to the changes, as their conduct did not demonstrate clear acceptance. The retrenchment process was procedurally and substantively unfair due to the respondent's failure to consult with Solidarity and the affected employees, as required by section 189 of the LRA. The company deprived the employees of the opportunit…

Source excerpt

• Unilateral Change To Terms
• Unfair Dismissal
• Consultation Requirements
• Compensation For Breach
• Notice Pay
• Covid19 Employment Measures

Mncwango and Another v Area Commissioner (Pietermaritzburg) Correctional Services and Another (D 165/23)

Mncwango and Another v Area Commissioner (Pietermaritzburg) Correctional Services and Another (D 165/23) [2024] ZALCD 5 (19 January 2024)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D 165/23

Judge

Whitcher

The Labour Court dismissed a legality review against the transfer of two Correctional Services employees, finding the challenge delayed and the transfers not shown to be punitive or arbitrary.

• Legality Review
• Transfer Policy
• Consultation Requirements
• Punitive Measures
• Delay In Review
• Efficient Use Of Human Resources

Assmang Proprietary Limited v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (13164/2022;13165/2022;13166/2022)

Assmang Proprietary Limited v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (13164/2022;13165/2022;13166/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1933 (20 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

13164/2022;13165/2022;13166/2022

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court reviewed and set aside environmental authorisations granted for mining permit applications because Assmang had not been properly consulted.

• Environmental Authorisation
• Public Participation
• Mining Rights
• Procedural Fairness
• Judicial Review
• Consultation Requirements