South Africa Case Law

MEC for Economic Development Gauteng and Another v Sibongile Vilakazi and Others (783/2023)

MEC for Economic Development Gauteng and Another v Sibongile Vilakazi and Others (783/2023) [2024] ZASCA 126; [2024] 4 All SA 344 (SCA) (17 September 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

783/2023

Judges

Dambuza, Mocumie, Kgoele, Smith, Dolamo

The SCA set aside interim relief restoring Gauteng Growth and Development Agency board members, finding the respondents failed to meet interim interdict requirements.

• Interim Interdict
• Executive Powers
• Board Termination
• Procedural Fairness
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Interim-interdict

Schultz v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (76/2023)

Schultz v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (76/2023) [2024] ZASCA 77; 2024 (2) SACR 294 (SCA) (23 May 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

76/2023

Judges

Mothle, Hughes, Mabindla-Boqwana, Seegobin, Keightley

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the power to make an extradition request to a foreign State, specifically the United States, vests exclusively in the Minister of Justice as a member of the national executive. This conclusion is supported by the Constitution, the Extradition Act, and customary international law. The Court reasoned that extradition requests are acts of sovereignty between States and inherently implicate foreign relations, which are the preserve of the executive. The absence of express provisions in the Extradition Act regarding outgoing requests does not negate the Minist…

Source excerpt

• Extradition Act
• Executive Powers
• Separation Of Powers
• Customary International Law
• Ministerial Discretion
• Prosecutorial Independence

Advocate Mncwabe v President of the Republic of South Africa Hon. Ramaphosa and Others (22356/2019; 31464/2019)

Advocate Mncwabe v President of the Republic of South Africa Hon. Ramaphosa and Others (22356/2019; 31464/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 305 (19 April 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22356/2019; 31464/2019

Judge

D S Fourie

The court held that the appointments of the applicants as Directors of Public Prosecutions were not final, as they had not been publicly announced or implemented by an overt act of the President. The functus officio doctrine did not apply because the decisions remained preliminary until public notification, which never occurred. The President, as the repository of executive power under the NPA Act and the Constitution, was entitled to reconsider and not finalise the appointments. The revocation of the appointments was a lawful exercise of executive discretion, made rationally and in the inter…

Source excerpt

• Functus Officio
• Executive Powers
• Appointment Of Directors Of Public Prosecutions
• Public Notification
• Procedural Fairness
• Principle Of Legality

Lebu v JB Marks Local Municipality and Others; Moeketsane v Mokhatla and Others (UM27/2021; UM30/2021)

Lebu v JB Marks Local Municipality and Others; Moeketsane v Mokhatla and Others (UM27/2021; UM30/2021) [2021] ZANWHC 58 (17 March 2021)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM27/2021; UM30/2021

Judge

MZ Makoti

The court found that the Administrator was lawfully empowered by the Provincial Executive to suspend the applicants as a precautionary measure. The applicants' argument that only Council could suspend them was rejected based on case law confirming that an Administrator may exercise disciplinary powers when expressly mandated. The suspensions were found to be rational, as the notices provided sufficient information regarding the alleged misconduct, and the applicants were able to make detailed representations. The court held that the applicants failed to establish urgency or irreparable harm,…

Source excerpt

• Precautionary Suspension
• Municipal Governance
• Legality Review
• Executive Powers
• Rationality
• Costs Orders

Helen Suzman Foundation v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (32858/2020)

Helen Suzman Foundation v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (32858/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 700 (4 December 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

32858/2020

Judges

D Mlambo, N Kollapen, S Baqwa

The High Court refused leave to appeal in a challenge over the Disaster Management Act’s role in South Africa’s COVID-19 response.

• Disaster Management Act
• Separation Of Powers
• Constitutional Interpretation
• Executive Powers
• Regulation Making Powers
• Leave-to-appeal

Moyane v Ramaphosa and Others (82287/2018)

Moyane v Ramaphosa and Others (82287/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 573 (11 December 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

82287/2018

Judge

H.J Fabricius

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any prima facie right to reinstatement or interim relief. The President acted within his executive powers under s. 6 of the SARS Act, lawfully and rationally, in the national interest, and after considering the SARS Commission's report. The applicant's interests were purely personal and financial, outweighed by the urgent need to restore SARS's credibility and stability. The applicant had alternative remedies and failed to participate meaningfully in the inquiry. The application was not urgent, lacked substantive grounds, and was an abuse…

Source excerpt

• Executive Powers
• Principle Of Legality
• Rationality Review
• Interim Interdict
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation
• Separation Of Powers

President of the Republic of South Africa v Democratic Alliance and Others (CCT159/18)

President of the Republic of South Africa v Democratic Alliance and Others (CCT159/18) [2019] ZACC 35; 2019 (11) BCLR 1403 (CC) ; 2020 (1) SA 428 (CC) (18 September 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 159/18

Judges

Mogoeng, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Ledwaba, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nicholls, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that the application for leave to appeal was moot because the main review application had been withdrawn and the interlocutory order compelling the President to disclose reasons and records for the dismissal of Ministers no longer had any practical effect. The Court found that it was not in the interests of justice to entertain the appeal, as the order was interlocutory, the merits were not decided by the lower courts, and the President would not suffer harm by waiting for a future challenge to raise the issue. The majority emphasized that the interpretation of R…

Source excerpt

• Rule 53 Uniform Rules
• Executive Powers
• Mootness
• Separation Of Powers
• Review Of Presidential Decisions

Moyane v Ramaphosa and Others (82287/2018)

Moyane v Ramaphosa and Others (82287/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 835; [2019] 1 All SA 718 (GP) (11 December 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

82287/2018

Judge

H.J Fabricius

The court found that the President acted lawfully, rationally, and fairly in removing the applicant as SARS Commissioner, having regard to the national interest and the urgent need to restore SARS's credibility and stability. The applicant failed to establish urgency, a prima facie right, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured him. The court held that the President's executive powers under s. 6 of the SARS Act were properly exercised, and that procedural fairness was not required in the circumstances. The applicant's interests were purely personal and financial, and did…

Source excerpt

• Executive Powers
• Principle Of Legality
• Rationality Review
• Interim Interdict
• Separation Of Powers
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation

Democratic Alliance v Zuma and Another (21029/2017)

Democratic Alliance v Zuma and Another (21029/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 612 (29 September 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21029/2017

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court stayed a bid to compel President Zuma to implement the Public Protector’s remedial action pending review, citing the interests of justice.

• Public Protector Remedial Action
• Separation Of Powers
• Commission Of Inquiry
• Interim Interdict
• Executive Powers
• Judicial Review

President of the Republic of SA v Democratic Alliance and Others (24396/2017)

President of the Republic of SA v Democratic Alliance and Others (24396/2017) [2017] ZAGPJHC 168 (2 June 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

24396/2017

Judge

Vally

The court held that Rule 53 applies to the review of executive decisions, including those made by the President, as the Constitution brings such decisions within judicial scrutiny for rationality. The President's argument that the order trespasses on Parliament's domain was rejected, as the Constitution is supreme and no official or institution is immune from judicial review. The court found no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion on the applicability of Rule 53. However, due to the significant public interest and the far-reaching implications of the order…

Source excerpt

• Executive Powers
• Rationality Review
• Rule 53 Application
• Separation Of Powers
• Judicial Review