South Africa Case Law

Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others v O'Brien N.O and Others (76995/18)

Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others v O'Brien N.O and Others (76995/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 520 (2 August 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

76995/18

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that the orders granted by the first respondent on 25 and 29 August 2016 were irregular as there was no evidence of continued delay in the trials, and the orders impacted the Minister, who was not a party before the court. The first respondent's reliance on section 342A of the CPA was unjustified under the circumstances, as the trials were ready to proceed and no application for postponement was made. The orders granted on 14 October 2016 were also irregular and ultra vires, as the first respondent used the court to air personal grievances and presided over his own case withou…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Independence
• Review Of Military Court Orders
• Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act
• Defence Act
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Unreasonable Delay

Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (54573/2018)

Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (54573/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 461 (14 August 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

54573/2018

Judge

Van der Westhuizen

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and rejecting claims of misdirected findings on internal remedies.

• Leave To Appeal
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Declaratory Orders
• Defence Act
• Judicial Review
• Leave-to-appeal

Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Another (31824/2017)

Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Another (31824/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 526; [2018] 4 All SA 402 (GP) (1 June 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31824/2017

Judge

Dodson AJ

The court held that the applicants' appointments as officers commanding in the reserve force were not unlawfully terminated, as their membership continued for the contracted period and actual service was subject to rotational call-ups based on operational needs. The respondents' actions did not amount to termination of appointment but rather the expiry of a specific call-up period. Furthermore, the court found that the applicants had not exhausted internal remedies as required by section 7(2) of PAJA. The second applicant's complaint to the military ombud was still pending, and the first appl…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Termination Of Appointment
• Internal Remedies
• Military Ombud
• Defence Act
• Judicial Review

Simelani v Minister of Defence and Others (62987/17)

Simelani v Minister of Defence and Others (62987/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 407 (10 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

62987/17

Judge

Strijdom

The court upheld res judicata and lis pendens objections to an application to enforce a lapsed interim interdict and postponed the remaining prayers sine die.

• Res Judicata
• Lis Pendens
• Interim Interdicts
• Defence Act
• Employment Termination
• Res-judicata

Maswangayi v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (5309/2016)

Maswangayi v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (5309/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 827 (4 August 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

5309/2016

Judge

TJ Raulinga

The High Court reviewed and set aside the SANDF’s refusal to reinstate a member after his conviction was overturned, ordering reinstatement and back pay.

• Termination Of Service
• Reinstatement
• Defence Act
• Military Supplementary Measures Act
• Administrative Action
• Administrative-law

S v Toms; S v Bruce (139/89, 289/89)

S v Toms; S v Bruce (139/89, 289/89) [1990] ZASCA 38; 1990 (2) SA 802 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 248 (A) (30 March 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

139/89, 289/89

Judges

Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Smalberger JA, Kumleben JA, Nicholas AJA

The majority of the court held that section 126A(1)(a) of the Defence Act does not prescribe a mandatory sentence of imprisonment. The phrase 'liable to' in the section denotes a susceptibility to the prescribed maximum sentence, not a compulsory imposition of that sentence. The absence of the words 'not exceeding' does not, in itself, signify a mandatory sentence, and the legislature did not use clear language to indicate such intent. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and individualization in sentencing, and found that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act per…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Discretion
• Mandatory Sentences
• Statutory Interpretation
• Defence Act
• Conscientious Objection