South Africa Case Law

Groundwork Trust and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others (22046/22)

Groundwork Trust and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others (22046/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 117 (8 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22046/22

Judge

J G Cilliers

The High Court refused leave to appeal against dismissal of a PAJA review, finding the applicants had not explained an eight-month delay or shown a basis for extending time.

• Delay In Review Applications
• Extension Of Time Under Paja
• Environmental Authorisation
• Public Interest Litigation
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Orders

Lieutenant Colonel KB O'Brien NO v The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (1271/2021)

Lieutenant Colonel KB O'Brien NO v The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (1271/2021) [2022] ZASCA 178; [2023] 1 All SA 341 (SCA) (13 December 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1271/2021

Judges

Ponnan, Nicholls, Gorven, Mabindla-Boqwana, Chetty

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the delay in bringing the review application was unsatisfactory but condonation was justified due to the importance of the matter and prospects of success. The Defence Force had standing because the appellant's orders directly implicated senior officers and the Minister, requiring them to act or face contempt. The appellant's orders went beyond the issues before him, were not sought by the parties, and were issued mero motu, reflecting a gross irregularity in the proceedings. The constitutional challenges raised by the appellant were abstract, hypothetica…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Independence
• Review Of Military Court Orders
• Standing
• Delay In Review Applications
• Constitutional Challenge To Statutes
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation

Mzendana v Muller and Another (307/2020)

Mzendana v Muller and Another (307/2020) [2022] ZAECMKHC 93 (8 November 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

307/2020

Judges

Rugunanan, Bloem

The court found that the cumulative effect of the magistrate's conduct, including leading and augmenting questions to State witnesses on material aspects of the case, created a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a reasonable person in the applicant's position. The refusal to recuse herself was therefore improper. Although both parties were culpable in delaying the proceedings, the interests of justice required that the review be entertained and the magistrate's decision set aside. The matter was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide on re-arraignment, and if so…

Source excerpt

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias
• Review Of Magistrates Court Decision
• Delay In Review Applications

Association of Concerned Professional Animal Consultants v Minister of Agricultural, Forestry and Others (62661/18)

Association of Concerned Professional Animal Consultants v Minister of Agricultural, Forestry and Others (62661/18) [2022] ZAGPPHC 503 (14 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

62661/18

Judge

Tlhapi VV

The High Court granted leave to appeal, finding compelling reasons for the Full Court to consider whether legality issues were raised and whether costs were correctly ordered.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Principle Of Legality
• Delay In Review Applications
• Costs Biowatch Principle
• Public Health Regulation
• Leave-to-appeal

Nzimande and Others v Director General of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC41/2011)

Nzimande and Others v Director General of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC41/2011) [2022] ZALCC 47 (8 July 2022)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC41/2011

Judge

MIA

The court found that the applicants failed to bring their review application within a reasonable time and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The applicants' interest in the land was through shareholding in a company that was liquidated, and they did not oppose the liquidation or take steps to protect their interest. The consultative process was properly followed, and the applicants did not object to the fifth respondent's claim when given the opportunity. The principle of legality does not dispense with the requirement of reasonable promptness in review proceedings. The…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights
• Delay In Review Applications
• Principle Of Legality
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Consultation Requirements
• Functus Officio

Reelin Investments (Pty) Ltd v Transnet SOC Limited and Others (7438/2022)

Reelin Investments (Pty) Ltd v Transnet SOC Limited and Others (7438/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 215 (5 April 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

7438/2022

Judge

R M Keightley

The High Court struck Reelin’s urgent interdict application from the roll, finding it had delayed too long in challenging Transnet’s tender award to Miner Enterprises.

• Interim Interdict
• Judicial Review Of Tender Award
• Urgency In Interdict Applications
• Preferential Procurement Regulations
• Local Content Requirements
• Delay In Review Applications

Nomkopo v MEC for Rural Development and Agririan Reform, Eastern Cape and Another (3510/2020)

Nomkopo v MEC for Rural Development and Agririan Reform, Eastern Cape and Another (3510/2020) [2021] ZAECMHC 34 (14 October 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3510/2020

Judge

Z. M. Nhlangulela

The court found that the respondent, as an organ of state, undertook to address the applicant's grievance regarding her demotion and salary overpayment through Circular 1/2015, but failed to take a decision as required by section 5(7) of the Public Service Act. This omission constitutes administrative action reviewable under section 6(2)(g) of PAJA. The High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter because the applicant's cause of action is administrative review, not an unfair labour practice. The delay in launching the application was justified by the respondent's ongoing internal pro…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Failure To Take Decision
• Public Service Act
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Delay In Review Applications

Public Servants Association of South Africa and Others v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (886/2019)

Public Servants Association of South Africa and Others v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (886/2019) [2020] ZASCA 126; [2020] 4 All SA 710 (SCA) (9 October 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

886/2019

Judges

Navsa, Saldulker, Schippers, Dlodlo, Goosen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Rule 14.4.2 of the Government Employees Pension Fund Rules requires the Board to consult with employee organisations before amending the F(Z) and A(X) actuarial interest factors. Consultation must precede the decision and cannot be substituted by post hoc engagement or consultation through the PSCBC, which is not the prescribed forum. The Board's failure to consult as required rendered its decision invalid. The delay in bringing the review application was excused due to ongoing engagement and the absence of prejudice to the GEPF. The appeal was upheld, th…

Source excerpt

• Consultation Requirements
• Fiduciary Duty Of Trustees
• Legality Review
• Government Employees Pension Law
• Collective Bargaining
• Delay In Review Applications

Habitat Council v BPH Properties (Pty) Ltd (A388/17)

Habitat Council v BPH Properties (Pty) Ltd (A388/17) [2018] ZAWCHC 98 (17 August 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A388/17

Judges

Ndita, Rogers, Savage

The High Court upheld an appeal, finding a 852-day delay in a PAJA review grossly unjustified and refusing condonation.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Heritage Resource Protection
• Delay In Review Applications
• Condonation
• Demolition Permits
• Administrative-law

PG Group (Pty) Ltd and Others v National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Another (57506/2013)

PG Group (Pty) Ltd and Others v National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Another (57506/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1119 (4 October 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

57506/2013

Judge

A.A. Louw

The High Court dismissed a review of NERSA’s gas pricing decisions, holding the challenge was brought too late under PAJA and no extension was justified.

• Judicial Review Under Paja
• Delay In Review Applications
• Regulation Of Gas Prices
• Methodology For Price Determination
• Administrative-law
• Paja-review