Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
4 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Administrative Law [2022] ZASCA 149

Siyangena Technologies (Pty) Ltd v PRASA and Others (487/2021)

Siyangena Technologies (Pty) Ltd v PRASA and Others (487/2021) [2022] ZASCA 149; [2023] 1 All SA 74 (SCA); 2023 (2) SA 51 (SCA) (1 November 2022)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
487/2021
Judges
Ponnan, Van der Merwe, Plasket, Chetty, Salie-Hlope

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the procurement contracts between PRASA and Siyangena were constitutionally invalid due to pervasive irregularities and corruption in the procurement process. The delay in PRASA's self-review application was condoned, as the new Board acted reasonably once the true extent of the malfeasance was uncovered. Siyangena was found not to be an innocent party, but complicit or at least a beneficiary of the irregularities. The remedial order for an independent engineer to assess the value of works was upheld as a just and equitable remedy, ensuring neither party…

Source excerpt

  • Legality Review
  • Public Procurement Irregularities
  • Just And Equitable Remedy
  • Delay Condonation
  • Remedial Discretion
  • Costs Sanction
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2018] ZALCJHB 25

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2534/15)

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2534/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 25; (2018) 39 ILJ 1303 (LC); [2018] 7 BLLR 656 (LC) (25 January 2018)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR2534/15
Judge
Nkutha-Nkontwana

The Labour Court held that threshold agreements such as the PLA and PA do not bar minority unions from requesting organisational rights under the LRA. The settlement agreement between AMCU and Murray & Roberts was concluded on the basis of a common mistake regarding AMCU's eligibility for organisational rights, influenced by an incorrect interpretation of the law. Both parties erroneously believed that AMCU had to comply with the collective agreements before exercising organisational rights, which is inconsistent with constitutional and statutory principles. Consequently, the settlement agree…

Source excerpt

  • Organisational Rights
  • Threshold Agreements
  • Settlement Agreement Review
  • Common Mistake
  • Jurisdictional Ruling
  • Delay Condonation
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2017] ZAGPJHC 243

BCE Food Service Equipment (Pty) Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (27898/2015)

BCE Food Service Equipment (Pty) Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (27898/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 243 (12 September 2017)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
27898/2015
Judge
Wepener

The court held that the applicant was entitled to bring a review under PAJA, as the Customs and Excise Act does not exclude judicial review and the determination constituted administrative action. Condonation for the late filing of the review application and replying affidavit was granted, as the delay was not excessive, adequately explained, uncontested by the respondent, and caused no prejudice. On the merits, the court found that the respondent correctly classified the toasters under tariff heading 8516, as they are electro-thermic appliances of a kind used for domestic purposes, and the o…

Source excerpt

  • Customs And Excise Act
  • Tariff Classification
  • Review Of Administrative Action
  • Delay Condonation
  • Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2005] ZAECHC 1

Ntame v MEC Department of Social Development Eastern Cape (ECJ 012/2005)

Ntame v MEC Department of Social Development Eastern Cape (ECJ 012/2005) [2005] ZAECHC 1; [2005] 2 All SA 535 (SE); 2005 (6) SA 248 (E) (11 January 2005)

Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Case number
ECJ 012/2005
Judge
Plasket

The court held that prescription had not been raised by the respondent and could not be raised mero motu by the court, so the debts were enforceable and the applications for review were not moot. The delays in bringing the review proceedings were inordinate and unreasonable, but condonation was granted due to the applicants' poverty, lack of education, and the absence of prejudice to the respondent. The common law delay rule applied rather than PAJA, as the causes of action arose before PAJA came into force. There was no statutory obligation to exhaust internal remedies, and the time for inte…

Source excerpt

  • Social Assistance
  • Judicial Review
  • Delay Condonation
  • Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
  • Procedural Fairness
  • Maintenance Grant
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.