South Africa Case Law

Blue Chip Flight School (Pty) Ltd and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (2022/26839)

Blue Chip Flight School (Pty) Ltd and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (2022/26839) [2025] ZAGPPHC 32; [2025] 2 All SA 91 (GP) (20 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/26839

Judge

LE Grange

The High Court dismissed a Rule 30A/53 application to compel further source documents, finding the requested material was not part of the record considered in adopting the MTREF.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Delay Rule
• Rule 53 Record
• Jurisdiction
• Legality Review
• Administrative-law

Gauteng Enterprise Propeller v Amahlo Consulting Services CC (22/13270)

Gauteng Enterprise Propeller v Amahlo Consulting Services CC (22/13270) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1476 (28 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22/13270

Judge

S Yacoob

The court found that the decisions to appoint Amahlo, conclude the Memorandum of Agreement, and sign the addendum were unlawful, as they contravened procurement procedures and lacked proper board approval. Although GEP did not provide a full explanation for the delay between receiving the complaint and instituting proceedings, the delay was not unreasonable given the circumstances, including the need for a forensic investigation and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Even if the delay had been unreasonable, the patent unlawfulness of the decisions required the court to condone the delay and…

Source excerpt

• Legality Review
• Public Procurement
• Unlawful Contract
• Delay Rule
• Just And Equitable Relief

Colvic Marketing & Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure and Others (21819/2020)

Colvic Marketing & Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure and Others (21819/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 375 (9 June 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21819/2020

Judge

AC Basson

The court found that the applicant launched the review application outside the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA, and the delay was per se unreasonable. The applicant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay, both in launching the review and in filing the replying affidavit, which was substantially late. The prejudice to the Department, BSE, and affected communities was significant, given that most of the contract period had elapsed and 14 bridges had already been manufactured. The interests of justice did not warrant condonation of the delay. The administrative actio…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Procurement
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Judicial Review
• Tender Award
• Delay Rule

Automotive Parts and Exports (Pty) Ltd t/a BP Auto Bridge and Others v Chairman: Municipal Appeals Tribunal: Makhado Local Municipality and Others (1235/2018)

Automotive Parts and Exports (Pty) Ltd t/a BP Auto Bridge and Others v Chairman: Municipal Appeals Tribunal: Makhado Local Municipality and Others (1235/2018) [2022] ZALMPTHC 3 (25 March 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

1235/2018

Judge

AML Phatudi

The High Court upheld a PAJA review of township-establishment decisions, finding no undue delay and holding that the property description was materially defective.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Township Establishment
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Delay Rule
• Property Description Requirements
• Administrative-law

Ketlele N.O. and Another v Ketlele and Others (2019/35600)

Ketlele N.O. and Another v Ketlele and Others (2019/35600) [2022] ZAGPJHC 47 (9 February 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/35600

Judge

Bezuidenhout

The High Court refused condonation for a late review of a 2003 housing appeal decision awarding a Soweto property to the first respondent.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Condonation
• Intestate Succession
• Housing Tribunal Review
• Delay Rule
• Paja

Tavrida Electric Africa (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC (Ltd) and Others (61801/2019)

Tavrida Electric Africa (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC (Ltd) and Others (61801/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 771 (9 November 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61801/2019

Judge

Vuma

The court found that the applicant was furnished with sufficient reasons for the rejection of its tender on 28 January 2019. The reasons provided at that time were adequate to enable the applicant to institute judicial review proceedings. The applicant's expectation of receiving 'detailed information' does not accord with the requirements of section 7(1)(b) of PAJA, which only requires that reasons be provided, not exhaustive detail. The applicant failed to institute its review application within the prescribed 180-day period and did not apply for condonation for the delay, despite being invi…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Delay Rule
• Condonation
• Tender Review
• Judicial Review

ICT-Works Proprietary Limited v City of Cape Town (6582/2020)

ICT-Works Proprietary Limited v City of Cape Town (6582/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 119 (18 June 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6582/2020

Judge

Francis, AJ

The court found that the contract concluded between ICT-Works and the City of Cape Town was unlawful and invalid because it contravened section 33 of the Municipal Finance Management Act. The Council approved a contract for a seven-year period, but the executed contract extended beyond fourteen years, which was a material irregularity. The City failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its delay in bringing the self-review application, and its conduct was found to be egregious. However, the court was constitutionally compelled to declare the contract invalid due to clear and undisputed u…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Finance Management Act
• Public Procurement
• Contractual Validity
• Delay Rule
• Principle Of Legality
• Self Review

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union and Others (JA112/2013)

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union and Others (JA112/2013) [2017] ZALAC 43; (2017) 38 ILJ 2695 (LAC) (28 June 2017)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA112/2013

Judges

Tlaletsi, Ndlovu, Coppin

The Labour Appeal Court set aside dismissal for delay and held that SALGA had not authorised the settlement agreement or award.

• Collective Agreements
• Ostensible Authority
• Delay Rule
• Mandate Of Employers Organisation
• Turquand Rule
• Delay-rule

Great Force Investments 124 (Pty) Limited v Surveyor-General, Cape Town and Others (4348/2013)

Great Force Investments 124 (Pty) Limited v Surveyor-General, Cape Town and Others (4348/2013) [2015] ZAWCHC 127; [2015] 4 All SA 322 (WCC) (25 August 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4348/2013

Judge

Gamble

The court found that the Surveyor-General's decision to add Servitude Note 3 to Survey Diagram 1489/1999 was based on incorrect facts and unfounded assumptions, particularly the conflation of a 'farm road' with a registered servitude and the presumption of inaccuracy in older survey diagrams without proper basis. The decision lacked logic and rationality and was therefore reviewable on grounds of legality and rationality. The court further held that the applicant did not unreasonably delay in launching review proceedings, as it only became aware of the administrative action in December 2012 a…

Source excerpt

• Servitude Registration
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Delay Rule
• Land Survey Act
• Civiliter Modo

Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others v The South African National Roads Agency Ltd and Others (90/2013)

Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others v The South African National Roads Agency Ltd and Others (90/2013) [2013] ZASCA 148; [2013] 4 All SA 639 (SCA) (9 October 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

90/2013

Judges

Brand, Nugent, Petse, Van der Merwe, Swain

The court held that the review application was brought well outside the 180-day period prescribed by section 7(1) of PAJA, and the delay was unreasonable per se. The interests of justice did not warrant an extension under section 9(2), given the profound public and financial consequences that would result from setting aside the toll road declarations, including SANRAL's inability to service its R20 billion debt and the knock-on effects on national infrastructure and the economy. The court found that the challenge to the method of funding was a policy matter not susceptible to judicial review,…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Delay Rule
• Judicial Review
• Toll Roads
• Public Interest
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation