South Africa Case Law

Curro Holdings Limited and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (2023-055416)

Curro Holdings Limited and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (2023-055416) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1270 (12 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-055416

Judge

L. Windell

The court enforced a settlement agreement with the municipality and barred further water disconnections pending implementation of the agreed journals.

• Municipal Services Disconnection
• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Authority Of Municipal Officials
• Urgent Interdict
• Estoppel Against Statutory Body
• Municipal-services-disconnection

Joubert v Legal Aid South Africa (JS240/2010)

Joubert v Legal Aid South Africa (JS240/2010) [2011] ZALCJHB 19; (2011) 32 ILJ 1921 (LC) (16 March 2011)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS240/2010

Judge

Van Niekerk

The applicant failed to establish that the respondent had adopted a term and condition of employment entitling him to a post-retirement medical aid benefit (PRMAB), nor that such a term was approved by the Minister of Justice acting in consultation with the Minister of Finance as required by section 8 of the Legal Aid Act. The evidence showed that public service terms were not automatically adopted by the respondent; each term required specific board approval and ministerial consent. The applicant conceded that the necessary criteria for adoption and approval of PRMAB were not met. The plea o…

Source excerpt

• Terms And Conditions Of Employment
• Public Service Comparison
• Post Retirement Medical Aid Benefit
• Statutory Body Powers
• Estoppel Against Statutory Body

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v RPM Bricks Proprietary Ltd. (177/2006)

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v RPM Bricks Proprietary Ltd. (177/2006) [2007] ZASCA 28; [2007] SCA 28 (RSA); 2008 (3) SA 1 (SCA) (27 March 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

177/2006

Judges

Harms, Farlam, Lewis, Ponnan, Musi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the variation of the supply contract between the parties was invalid because the statutory requirements of section 38 of the Gauteng Rationalisation of Local Government Affairs Act were not complied with. The defendant's council did not pass a resolution to amend the contract, and its employees lacked authority to do so. The court distinguished between acts that are ultra vires and those that merely fail to comply with internal formalities, finding that the present case fell into the former category. Estoppel cannot operate to validate an act that is ultr…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires
• Estoppel Against Statutory Body
• Variation Of Tender Agreement
• Constitutional Legality