South Africa Case Law

HOD: Western Cape Education Department and Others v Equal Education Law Centre and Others (1003/2023)

HOD: Western Cape Education Department and Others v Equal Education Law Centre and Others (1003/2023) [2025] ZASCA 116 (11 August 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1003/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Mbatha, Windell, Bloem, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Rule 53(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court is limited to the production of records relevant to the administrative decision subject to judicial review. The High Court erred by granting an order compelling the Department to produce documents and information unrelated to the specific review relief sought, including materials intended to support declaratory and mandamus claims. Such relief requires separate procedural mechanisms and cannot be obtained through Rule 53. The Department had provided a record sufficient for the review of its placement decisions f…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 53
• Judicial Review
• Right To Education
• Mandamus Relief
• Declaratory Relief
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Van till Outdoor (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2024/032964)

Van till Outdoor (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2024/032964) [2025] ZAGPJHC 774 (8 August 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/032964

Judge

Snyman AJ

The High Court held that Johannesburg’s Outdoor Advertising By-Laws do not authorise JMPD impoundments, and granted declaratory and interdictory relief.

• Municipal By Laws Enforcement
• Unlawful Impoundment
• Declaratory Relief
• Interdictory Relief
• Doctrine Of Ripeness
• Interpretation Of By Laws

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

Ralineba and Others v Dzivhani and Another (1005/2023)

Ralineba and Others v Dzivhani and Another (1005/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 148 (4 August 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

1005/2023

Judge

Mashamba

The court confirmed several shareholdings in MIMED (Pty) Ltd, declared the first respondent’s conduct unlawful, dismissed the third applicant’s claim, and awarded costs against the respondents.

• Shareholder Disputes
• Declaratory Relief
• Companies Act Compliance
• Transfer Of Shares
• Validity Of Share Certificates
• Shareholder-disputes

Matakata v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) and Others (Leave to Appeal) (17671/2023)

Matakata v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) and Others (Leave to Appeal) (17671/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 329 (31 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17671/2023

Judge

S G Magardie

Leave to appeal refused in a PRASA dismissal case. The court held the applicant had no reasonable prospects and that his declaratory-relief case failed at the threshold.

• Declaratory Relief
• Unlawful Dismissal
• Procurement Policy
• Oudekraal Principle
• Existing Right Requirement
• Leave-to-appeal

N.A.T. v T.M.M. (2023/066211)

N.A.T. v T.M.M. (2023/066211) [2025] ZAGPJHC 727 (22 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/066211

Judge

C Von Ludwig

The High Court dismissed an interlocutory application seeking declaratory relief about a marriage regime, holding that material disputes of fact required trial.

• Declaratory Relief
• Dispute Of Fact
• Ante Nuptial Contract
• Customary Marriage
• Marriage Regime
• Costs Order

Harrison v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (14012/2022)

Harrison v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (14012/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 747 (21 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

14012/2022

Judge

KF Phahlamohlaka

The High Court dismissed a declaratory application challenging municipal property rates for 2008/2009, finding the applicant lacked a sufficient legal interest after selling the property.

• Municipal Property Rates Act
• Declaratory Relief
• Substantial Compliance
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Municipal-property-rates-act
• Declaratory-relief

Nedile Lodge (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (Leave to Appeal) (23/013897)

Nedile Lodge (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (Leave to Appeal) (23/013897) [2025] ZAGPPHC 766 (21 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23/013897

Judge

G J Scheepers

The High Court corrected and varied its earlier order under Rule 42(1)(b) and dismissed the leave to appeal, finding no merit in the proposed grounds.

• Leave To Appeal
• Variation Of Order
• Lease Agreement Interpretation
• Costs Orders
• Declaratory Relief
• Leave-to-appeal

V.R.N v B.L.S (2024/058240)

V.R.N v B.L.S (2024/058240) [2025] ZAGPJHC 701 (18 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/058240

Judge

C Von Ludwig

The applicant failed to prove the existence of a valid and enforceable gamete donor agreement. The evidence showed that he was actively involved in the children’s lives and contributed financially, which is inconsistent with the role of a mere gamete donor. The court found that granting the declaratory order would unjustly deprive the children of paternal support and contravene the paramountcy of their best interests as required by the Children’s Act. The applicant’s reliance on section 40(3) was misplaced, as the provision is intended to protect donors in genuine donor scenarios, not to allo…

Source excerpt

• Parental Responsibilities
• Gamete Donor Agreement
• Children Best Interests
• Declaratory Relief
• Maintenance Obligations

MEC for Health: Gauteng Province and Others v Buhle Waste (Pty) Ltd (338/2024 ; 384/2024)

MEC for Health: Gauteng Province and Others v Buhle Waste (Pty) Ltd (338/2024 ; 384/2024) [2025] ZASCA 102 (15 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

338/2024 & 384/2024

Judges

Mbatha JA, Baartman JA, Steyn AJJA, Tolmay AJJA, Vally AJJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred by setting aside administrative action through a declarator rather than a review under PAJA. The respondent, Buhle Waste, avoided the prescribed review procedure and timeframes, prejudicing the other parties and compromising the public interest in finality of administrative action. The high court granted relief not properly pleaded or canvassed, depriving the appellants of the opportunity to respond with the benefit of the Rule 53 record. The correct procedure for challenging administrative action is a review under PAJA, and declarato…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Tender Review
• Declaratory Relief
• Interdictory Relief
• Pleading Requirements