South Africa Case Law

Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (15988/2020)

Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (15988/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2026 (8 December 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

15988/2020

Judge

C.J. Collis

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The mining authorization was not issued to the joint venture but to Glencore, and thus the entity registered for diesel rebates did not qualify for such rebates. The Commissioner was not required to interrogate mining rights registered in another entity's name, and the court's reliance on the Graspan decision was correct. The grounds advanced by the applicants did not meet the higher threshold required for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(…

Source excerpt

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Internal Appeal Jurisdiction
• Mining Rights Authorisation
• Superior Courts Act Section 17
• Discretion Of Commissioner

Makume v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 1587/20)

Makume v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 1587/20) [2022] ZALCJHB 199 (28 July 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 1587/20

Judge

D Mahosi

Labour Court review of a CCMA condonation ruling dismissed. The court held the employee’s 40-day late referral was insufficiently explained and facts on prospects were immaterial.

• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Late Referral
• Discretion Of Commissioner
• Unfair-dismissal

Du Preez v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (44933/2014)

Du Preez v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (44933/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 801; 2015 (1) SACR 478 (GP) (18 September 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44933/2014

Judge

N M Mavundla

The High Court upheld the revocation of parole, finding the board could consider misconduct discovered after release but committed while the applicant was still incarcerated.

• Parole Revocation
• Judicial Review
• Correctional Services Act
• Discretion Of Commissioner
• Procedural Irregularity
• Parole-revocation

Mhlanga v BMW SA (JR854/02)

Mhlanga v BMW SA (JR854/02) [2002] ZALCJHB 13 (15 October 2002)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR854/02

Judge

Revelas

The Labour Court dismissed a review of a CCMA condonation ruling, finding no basis to interfere with the commissioner’s discretion on a late referral.

• Condonation
• Ccma Review
• Late Referral
• Discretion Of Commissioner
• Ccma-review
• Late-referral

Naude and Another v Fraser (150/97)

Naude and Another v Fraser (150/97) [1998] ZASCA 56; 1998 (4) SA 539 (SCA); [1998] 3 All SA 239 (A) ; 1998 (8) BCLR 945 (SCA) (26 June 1998)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

150/97

Judges

Smalberger, Schutz, Scott, Plewman, Melunsky

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the children's court commissioner acted properly and in accordance with the Child Care Act and its regulations. Mr Fraser was afforded a full hearing regarding his application to intervene under regulation 4(2), and the commissioner's refusal to allow him to join the proceedings was a judicial exercise of discretion, not a gross irregularity. The adoption application was properly disposed of under regulation 21(1), which permits the commissioner to grant an adoption order without a hearing if satisfied on the relevant matters. The counter-application by M…

Source excerpt

• Adoption Procedure
• Parental Rights
• Child Care Act
• Constitutional Review
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Discretion Of Commissioner

South African Druggists Ltd. v Pfizer Inc. (612/87)

South African Druggists Ltd. v Pfizer Inc. (612/87) [1989] ZASCA 65 (26 May 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

612/87

Judges

Corbett, Hoexter, Nestadt, Kumleben, Nicholas

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent had not derived adequate remuneration from the patent, as the delay in commercial exploitation was due to necessary development, testing, and regulatory approval—factors extraneous to the invention itself. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the respondent recouped lost remuneration by increasing prices, finding that the recoupment reasoning is not a valid legal principle and that the prices for Feldene were competitive and not loaded. The respondent was not at fault for the lost time, and the invention did not suffer from inhe…

Source excerpt

• Patent Extension
• Adequate Remuneration
• Lost Time Principle
• Competitive Pricing
• Discretion Of Commissioner