South Africa Case Law

Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others

The impugned provisions are unconstitutional because they prevent asylum seekers from obtaining a merits-based assessment by disqualifying them for procedural non-compliance, thereby violating non-refoulement; section 21(1B) also confers unguided discretion and, with or without the now-invalid regulations, is irrational and vague. The High Court's order declaring sections 4(1)(f), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(i) and 21(1B) invalid is therefore confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Non-refoulement
• Asylum applications
• Constitutional validity of legislation
• Subordinate legislation
• Vagueness and discretion
• Costs

Lueven Metals (Pty) Limited v CSARS

Section 11(1)(f) of the VAT Act requires, in addition to supply to a prescribed purchaser and supply in one of the prescribed forms, that the gold must not have undergone a historical manufacturing process other than refining or manufacture or production into the prescribed forms. On the ordinary text of the provision, recycled or second-hand gold that was previously manufactured into non-prescribed forms is excluded from zero-rating, and the contextual and purposive material does not justify a contrary reading.

Source excerpt

• Value-added tax
• Statutory interpretation
• Zero-rating of gold supplies
• Second-hand/recycled gold
• Costs

Solidarity Trade Union and Others v Minister of Health and Others

The Court held that the matter was properly before it despite being an abstract challenge, but that sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 were constitutionally invalid because, on their face, they were not rationally connected to the asserted purposes of broadening access to health care and enforcing norms and standards, and they unjustifiably limited the section 22 right to choose a trade, occupation or profession freely. The provisions were therefore severed from the Act and the High Court’s order was confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Abstract challenge
• Rationality
• Section 22 freedom to choose trade, occupation or profession
• Section 36 limitations analysis
• Severance
• Confirmation of constitutional invalidity

South Africa Riding for the Disabled Association v Regional Land Claims Commission, Western Cape and Others

SARDA lacked standing because the Constitutional Court's 2017 judgment finally determined that its interest in the restitution proceedings was limited to compensation. SARDA did not bring a proper rescission application against that 2017 order and was therefore not entitled to try to re-open or undermine it through an appeal against the Land Court's 2024 order. Since standing was absent, leave to appeal had to be refused, with costs.

Source excerpt

• Standing
• Intervention
• Rescission
• Finality of judgments
• Costs
• Lawful occupier compensation

Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma v President of the Republic of South Africa

The applicants did not plead a specific constitutional obligation uniquely imposed on the President that he failed to fulfil; instead, they challenged the manner in which he exercised discretionary powers. That does not engage the Constitutional Court's exclusive jurisdiction under section 167(4)(e). Nor did the applicants establish exceptional circumstances or the interests of justice for direct access under section 167(6)(a), especially where the High Court was available and could grant interim relief.

Source excerpt

• Exclusive jurisdiction
• Direct access
• Presidential powers
• Appointment of acting minister
• Commission of inquiry
• Costs

Sunwest International (Pty) Limited t/a Grandwest Casino and Entertainment World and Another v Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board and Another

The Court held that the dispute was an ordinary matter of statutory interpretation concerning whether freeplay credits are included in the taxable revenue of casino operators, and that neither constitutional jurisdiction nor general jurisdiction was engaged because proper consideration of constitutional factors could not plausibly lead to a different outcome and the issue did not transcend the narrow interests of the parties. The applications for leave to appeal were therefore refused.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Interpretation of statutes
• Constitutional jurisdiction
• General public importance
• Gambling tax
• Freeplay credits

Naude and Another v South African Legal Practice Council (A262/2023)

Naude and Another v South African Legal Practice Council (A262/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 774 (12 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A262/2023

Judges

Millar, Van der Schyff, Labuschagne

The High Court upheld an appeal against the suspension of attorney Wynand Naude, finding the LPC’s investigation and urgent suspension application were unjustified.

• Legal Practitioner Suspension
• Misrepresentation
• Trust Account Compliance
• Right To A Hearing
• Urgent Application
• Costs Award

Gert Sibande District Municipality v Bonginkosi Technologies (Pty) Ltd (5459/2022)

Gert Sibande District Municipality v Bonginkosi Technologies (Pty) Ltd (5459/2022) [2025] ZAMPMHC 37 (4 August 2025)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

5459/2022

Judge

Langa

The High Court granted leave to appeal to the Full Court after finding the applicant had shown reasonable prospects of a different outcome.

• Leave To Appeal
• Review Of Tender Award
• Service Level Agreement
• Declaratory Relief
• Costs Award
• Leave-to-appeal

Fourie v Botha and Others (500/2024)

Fourie v Botha and Others (500/2024) [2025] ZANCHC 70 (1 August 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

500/2024

Judge

Olivier AJ

The High Court awarded party-and-party costs after an urgent application, but refused punitive attorney-and-client costs for lack of a proper founding case.

• Costs Award
• Attorney And Client Scale
• Party And Party Scale
• Interim Relief
• Urgent Application
• Civil-procedure

Vodacom (Pty) Limited v Kenneth Nkosana Makate and Another

The Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment was so thinly reasoned and so affected by confusion, disregard of evidence, and failure to address central issues that it constituted a total failure of justice and breached the rule of law and section 34. In addition, the substituted order it granted in favour of Mr Makate was not properly before it because there was no cross-appeal. The appeal therefore had to succeed and the matter be remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted panel of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Source excerpt

• Fair hearing
• Rule of law
• Appellate jurisdiction
• Cross-appeal
• Remittal
• Costs