Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Democratic Alliance v Premier of the Free State Province and Others (1623/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 338 (22 October 2024)
High Court declared Matjhabeng Municipality in breach of constitutional duties and ordered provincial or national intervention, a recovery plan, and costs.
Featherbrooke Homeowners Association NPC v Mogale City Local Municipality (1106/2022) [2024] ZASCA 27 (22 March 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal remitted a flooding dispute to the High Court because the prior order failed to resolve liability for all cited state entities.
Vinpro NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (1741/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 261 (3 December 2021)
The court refused the applicant's amendment application, finding no adequate explanation for the delay and holding that granting the amendment would prejudice the respondents by requiring them to answer a fresh challenge to regulations that no longer existed. The application was found to be moot, as the impugned regulations had been repealed and no live controversy remained. The High Court, as a court of first instance, does not have discretion to hear moot matters. On the constitutional challenge, the court held that the Disaster Management Act and the impugned regulations fell within the co…
Source excerpt
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Resilient Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others; Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Sabie Chamber of Commerce and Tourism and Others; Chweu Local Municipality and Others v Sabie Chamber of Commerce and Tourism and Others (663/2019; 664/2019; 583/2019) [2020] ZASCA 185; [2021] 1 All SA 668 (SCA); 2021 (3) SA 47 (SCA) (29 December 2020)
Eskom's decision to interrupt bulk electricity supply to municipalities for non-payment, while contractually and statutorily permitted under section 21(5) of the Electricity Regulation Act and the supply agreements, was subject to constitutional constraints. The court held that Eskom, as an organ of state, was required to exhaust intergovernmental dispute resolution mechanisms under section 41 of the Constitution and the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act before taking drastic measures that would undermine municipalities' ability to provide basic services. The interruption decision con…
Source excerpt
City of Cape Town v National Energy Regulator of South Africa (51765/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC 800 (11 August 2020)
The court held that the disputes between the City, the Minister, and NERSA are intergovernmental disputes as defined by section 41 of the Constitution and the Framework Act. All parties are organs of state, and the dispute concerns statutory powers and functions. The City failed to comply with the mandatory dispute resolution procedures prescribed by the Framework Act before approaching the court. The court found no urgency or exceptional circumstances justifying condonation of non-compliance. The City's efforts to engage with the Minister and NERSA were insufficient and did not constitute re…
Source excerpt
Member of the Executive Council for Health And Social Development of the Gauteng Provincial Government b Mathebula and Others (2012/22469) [2016] ZAGPJHC 187 (4 July 2016)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a consent order for damages, finding the State Attorney had apparent authority to settle and awarding costs.
Limpopo Legal Solutions and Others v Vhembe District Municipality and Others (430/2016) [2016] ZALMPTHC 20 (2 June 2016)
The court found that the applicants failed to exhaust available remedies before approaching the court, as they did not report the sewerage leak to the first respondent, who was responsible for water and sanitation services. The application was premature, and the requirements for a final interdict and mandamus were not satisfied, particularly the absence of alternative remedies. The court held that the deponent's authority to oppose was not in issue, and that the applicants did not provide sufficient evidence of a statutory dereliction by the first respondent. The application was dismissed, an…
Source excerpt
President of the Republic of South africa v Eisenberg and Associates and Another (1992/2004, 2406/2004) [2004] ZAWCHC 16; 2005 (1) SA 247 (C) (16 April 2004)
The Court held that the making of immigration regulations under section 7(1) of the Immigration Act is a matter of collective responsibility of the executive, requiring Cabinet approval. The Minister of Home Affairs acted without such approval, rendering the regulations invalid. The order granted by consent on 8 March 2004 was sought and granted in the absence of the President, who was affected thereby, and was erroneously made as it failed to comply with the constitutional requirement of collective Cabinet responsibility. The dispute was not an inter-governmental dispute between organs of St…
Source excerpt
MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal v Premier, Kwazulu-Natal: In re Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and Others (CCT15/02) [2002] ZACC 14; 2002 (10) BCLR 1028 (CC); 2002 (5) SA 717 (CC) (5 July 2002)
The Constitutional Court held that the dispute between the Premier and the MEC was a political matter that should have been resolved internally within the provincial government, not through litigation. Even if the dispute was justiciable, both parties failed to comply with their constitutional obligations of cooperative government under section 41(1)(h). The relief sought by the MEC would have no practical effect, as he was already represented by the same legal team as the other respondents and the case was fully argued. The Premier did not appeal the High Court's order and abided by the deci…
Source excerpt
Uthukela District Municipality and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT7/02) [2002] ZACC 11; 2002 (11) BCLR 1220 ; 2003 (1) SA 678 (CC) (12 June 2002)
The Constitutional Court declined to confirm a High Court invalidity order about municipal revenue sharing after the law was repealed and the dispute was settled.
Explore more
