South Africa Case Law

Reddy and Another v Cedar Lakes Homeowners Association NPC and Others (A018904/2022)

Reddy and Another v Cedar Lakes Homeowners Association NPC and Others (A018904/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 468 (17 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A018904/2022

Judges

Van Vuuren, Dlamini

The High Court upheld an appeal under the CSOS Act, finding that relevant evidence of inconsistent approval in a homeowners association was wrongly ignored.

• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Adjudicator Powers
• Due Process
• Evidence Relevance
• Homeowners Association Rules
• Community-schemes-ombud-service-act

Koekemoer and Others v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (2017/44930)

Koekemoer and Others v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (2017/44930) [2018] ZAGPJHC 113 (16 February 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2017/44930

Judge

Molahlehi

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with the court order requiring them to file their answering affidavit within the prescribed period and did not apply for an extension or stay of the order pending discovery. The Rule 35(12) notice does not automatically suspend the period for filing an answering affidavit. The applicants have satisfied all requirements for a final interdict: they have a clear right to occupy the properties, have suffered harassment and threats of eviction without due process, and have no alternative accommodation. The respondents' argument that confirmatio…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Eviction
• Interim Interdict
• Rule 35 Discovery
• Right To Housing
• Due Process
• Confirmation Of Rule Nisi

South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association v Minister of Safety and Security of the Republic of South Africa (21177/2016)

South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association v Minister of Safety and Security of the Republic of South Africa (21177/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 299; [2017] 3 All SA 1059 (GP); 2017 (2) SACR 288 (GP) (4 July 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21177/2016

Judge

R G Tolmay

Sections 24 and 28 of the Firearms Control Act, 2000 (Act 60 of 2000) are unconstitutional because they fail to provide a rational, clear, and non-arbitrary mechanism for firearm owners to rectify late renewal of licences. The legislative scheme does not offer due process for licence termination by effluxion of time, unlike other forms of termination, resulting in unequal treatment and violation of the right to equality. The absence of procedures for surrendering firearms and the inability to surrender for value constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property, infringing section 25 of the Con…

Source excerpt

• Firearms Control Act
• Rationality Review
• Void For Vagueness
• Property Rights
• Equality Rights
• Due Process

Midvaal Local Municipality v Meyerton Golf Club (A3038/14)

Midvaal Local Municipality v Meyerton Golf Club (A3038/14) [2014] ZAGPJHC 235 (15 October 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3038/14

Judges

Wepener, Makhanya

The court held that the appellant, a local authority, was not entitled under its by-laws to remove the respondent's advertising signs from council land without a court order. The by-laws did not contain clear and express language authorising self-help or dispossession without judicial intervention. Established legal principles, including the mandament van spolie, require restoration of possession to the despoiled party before any enquiry into rights, and prohibit self-help by any person or entity, including municipalities. The constitutional requirement of due process and the restrictive inte…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Self Help
• Municipal By Laws
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Due Process
• Unlawful Deprivation Of Property

Senwes Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa (87/CAC/FEB/09)

Senwes Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa (87/CAC/FEB/09) [2010] ZACAC 3 (3 February 2010)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

87/CAC/FEB/09

Judges

Davis, Mailula, Malan

Leave to appeal was refused because the pleadings and evidence sufficiently disclosed a margin squeeze case and no special leave grounds were shown.

• Margin Squeeze
• Due Process
• Special Leave
• Section 8 C Competition Act
• Margin-squeeze
• Special-leave

Senwes Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa (87/CAC/FEB/09)

Senwes Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa (87/CAC/FEB/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 61; [2009] 2 CPLR 285 (WCC) (3 February 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

87/CAC/FEB/09

Judges

Davis, Mailula, Malan

The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding the pleadings and evidence sufficiently disclosed a margin squeeze case and no due process breach.

• Margin Squeeze
• Due Process
• Special Leave
• Section 8 C
• Pleading Specificity
• Competition-law

Donato v MEC for Health and WelfareLimpopo Province and Others (J507/03)

Donato v MEC for Health and WelfareLimpopo Province and Others (J507/03) [2003] ZALC 71; (2003) 24 ILJ 1682 (LC); [2003] 8 BLLR 750 (LC) (10 June 2003)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J507/03

Judge

Pillay D

The Labour Court confirmed an interdict against stopping a Cuban doctor from working, holding that his HPCSA registration had not lawfully lapsed.

• Unlawful Termination
• Registration Of Foreign Medical Practitioners
• Government To Government Agreement
• Health Professions Act
• Interdict
• Due Process

Solomon v City of Cape Town and Others (C630/98)

Solomon v City of Cape Town and Others (C630/98) [1999] ZALC 135 (27 August 1999)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

C630/98

Judge

Stelzner

Labour Court review of a CCMA award was granted after the arbitrator narrowed issues but then reasoned beyond the agreed scope.

• Ccma Review
• Gross Irregularity
• Narrowing Of Issues
• Due Process
• Appointment Criteria
• Ccma-review

S v Ebrahim (279/89)

S v Ebrahim (279/89) [1991] ZASCA 3; 1991 (2) SA 553 (AD); [1991] 4 All SA 356 (AD) (26 February 1991)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

279/89

Judges

Steyn, Joubert, Van Heerden, Grosskopf, Nicholas

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, under South African common law, which is rooted in Roman-Dutch law, a court lacks jurisdiction to try a person who has been abducted from another country by agents acting on behalf of the State. The court found that the appellant was abducted from Swaziland by persons acting as instruments of the South African State, in breach of international law and the common law principles of sovereignty and fair process. The subsequent arrest and trial within South Africa did not cure the original illegality. The court rejected prior authorities that disregarded the…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Abduction Across Borders
• Sovereignty
• Due Process
• Unlawful Arrest