South Africa Case Law

Dihlabeng Local Municipality v All Unidentified and Unknown Persons Occupying or Intending to Occupy Bakenpark Extension 7 (Vogelfontein) Bethlehem and Others (3673/2021)

Dihlabeng Local Municipality v All Unidentified and Unknown Persons Occupying or Intending to Occupy Bakenpark Extension 7 (Vogelfontein) Bethlehem and Others (3673/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 63 (25 March 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3673/2021

Judge

Mthimunye, AJ

The court found that the applicant, as the lawful owner of the municipal properties, was entitled to seek eviction of the unidentified respondents who unlawfully occupied land earmarked for human settlement. The applicant's response to the Rule 7 notice was admitted, as condonation was granted due to the absence of prejudice and the interests of justice. The authority of the municipal manager to prosecute the application was upheld, as the council resolution was interpreted to include prosecution within the same court. Both parties' late filing of affidavits was condoned, given the constituti…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Right To Housing
• Municipal Land Occupation
• Condonation Of Late Filing
• Authority Of Municipal Manager
• Costs In Constitutional Matters

Durban University of Technology v Godlimpi and Others (D1411/2019)

Durban University of Technology v Godlimpi and Others (D1411/2019) [2020] ZAKZDHC 66 (22 December 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D1411/2019

Judge

Henriques

The court found that the applicant had established the requirements for a final interdict: a clear right to protect its property, staff, and students; injury in the form of violence, property damage, and disruption; and no alternative remedy, as security and police intervention had failed. The respondents' opposition was largely bare denials and did not meaningfully challenge the factual matrix. The relief sought did not infringe constitutional rights to protest or freedom of expression, as it was limited to preventing unlawful conduct and did not prohibit peaceful protest or attendance at le…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Right To Protest
• Limitation Of Rights
• Campus Security
• Regulation Of Gatherings Act
• Costs In Constitutional Matters

Limpopo Legal Solutions v Vhembe District Municipality and Others (CCT119/16)

Limpopo Legal Solutions v Vhembe District Municipality and Others (CCT119/16) [2017] ZACC 30; 2018 (4) BCLR 430 (CC) (17 August 2017)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 119/16

Judges

Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Mojapelo, Pretorius, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant, a voluntary association, was genuinely acting in the public interest by seeking to enforce the rights of Malamulele residents to sanitation and human dignity. The High Court erred in finding the applicant lacked standing under section 38(d) of the Constitution. The Court further found that section 35 of the General Law Amendment Act was not applicable, as the relief sought did not involve a rule nisi operating as an interim interdict. Regarding costs, the High Court failed to apply the Biowatch principle, which requires that costs not be award…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Public Interest Litigation
• Costs In Constitutional Matters
• Urgency
• Municipal Services
• Human Dignity

Breytenbecht N.O. and Another v Minister of Home Affairs (50365.2014)

Breytenbecht N.O. and Another v Minister of Home Affairs (50365.2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 470 (27 May 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50365/14

Judge

H K Kooverjie

The court found that the defence of res judicata did not apply because the parties, relief sought, and cause of action in the previous matter differed from the present application. The evidence established that Nicolas Lwazi Msomi is the son of a South African citizen, and the Department of Home Affairs failed to provide any lawful reason for denying citizenship or to challenge the validity of the birth certificate. The court emphasized the constitutional imperative to act in the best interests of the child, including the right to a name and nationality from birth and access to education. The…

Source excerpt

• Citizenship By Birth
• Best Interests Of Child
• Birth Registration
• Constitutional Rights Of Children
• Res Judicata
• Costs In Constitutional Matters

Centre for Child Law v Governing Body of Hoerskool Fochville and Another ; InRe: Governing Body of Hoerskool Fochville and Another v Centre for Child Law (2011/46091)

Centre for Child Law v Governing Body of Hoerskool Fochville and Another ; InRe: Governing Body of Hoerskool Fochville and Another v Centre for Child Law (2011/46091) [2014] ZAGPJHC 187; [2014] 4 All SA 196 (GJ) (24 July 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2011/46091

Judge

Roland Sutherland

The High Court granted leave to appeal after finding that settlement of the main dispute rendered the interlocutory orders moot, but broader issues of principle still warranted appellate consideration.

• Intervention Procedure
• Public Interest Litigation
• Costs In Constitutional Matters
• Rule 35 Discovery
• Childrens Rights
• Amicus Curiae Evidence