South Africa Case Law

Vico v Department of Ferestry, Fisheries and Environment (C 666/2023)

Vico v Department of Ferestry, Fisheries and Environment (C 666/2023) [2025] ZALCCT 26 (23 April 2025)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C 666/2023

Judge

R Lagrange

The Labour Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to grant most of the declaratory relief sought by the applicant, as the issues raised were either already pending before the bargaining council or had been decided in previous proceedings. The applicant's complaints regarding procedural unfairness and delay in the disciplinary process were matters for arbitration, not for declaratory relief in the Labour Court. The request to declare expenditure on recusal applications as fruitless and wasteful fell outside the court's purview, as such determinations are reserved for accounting officers and t…

Source excerpt

• Declaratory Relief
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Procedural Unfairness
• Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure
• Review Of Disciplinary Proceedings

Mogale and Another v National Health Laboratory Services (JS958/2019)

Mogale and Another v National Health Laboratory Services (JS958/2019) [2024] ZALCJHB 362 (13 September 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS958/2019

Judge

Prinsloo

The Labour Court dismissed unfair dismissal claims by NHLS’s former CEO and CFO, found breaches of contract, and awarded proven damages to NHLS.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Breach Of Contract
• Public Finance Management Act
• Delegation Of Authority
• Fiduciary Duties
• Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure

Mobile Telephone Network v Special Investigating Unit (LP/03/2022)

Mobile Telephone Network v Special Investigating Unit (LP/03/2022) [2024] ZAST 6 (24 July 2024)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

LP/03/2022

Judge

K Pillay

The court held that the plaintiff need not attribute unlawful conduct to the excipient to sustain its cause of action. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to allege and prove that the contract was tainted by irregularity, specifically the breach of procurement prescripts under the PFMA. The approach in Allpay and Mining Qualifications Authority was followed, confirming that the consequences of invalidity must be addressed and that benefit from an unlawful contract is subject to public scrutiny. The excipient's argument that the expenditure was not fruitless or wasteful and that no unlawful con…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Irregularity
• Exception Procedure
• Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure
• Unlawful Contract
• Just And Equitable Relief

Emalahleni Local Municipality v Vatala and Another (2684/2022)

Emalahleni Local Municipality v Vatala and Another (2684/2022) [2024] ZAECMKHC 53 (24 May 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

2684/2022

Judge

Cengani-Mbakaza

The High Court dismissed an exception to a municipality’s claim for damages, finding the particulars of claim were sufficiently clear despite some missing dates.

• Exception To Pleadings
• Vagueness And Embarrassment
• Municipal Liability
• Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure
• Negligence
• Exception-to-pleadings

Special Investigating Unit v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Transport, Kwazulu-Natal and Another (KN/01/2021)

Special Investigating Unit v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Transport, Kwazulu-Natal and Another (KN/01/2021) [2024] ZAST 2 (27 February 2024)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

KN/01/2021

Judge

Modiba

The Tribunal found that both the review application and the counterapplication were brought after unreasonable delays, and neither party provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay. The SIU failed to justify its delay in instituting the review, and the MEC similarly failed to explain the delay in bringing the counterapplication. The interests of justice did not warrant overlooking these delays, especially given the significant prejudice that would result from setting aside a major infrastructure contract after its completion. On the merits, the SIU failed to substantiate its gr…

Source excerpt

• Legality Review
• Public Procurement
• Unreasonable Delay
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure
• Irregular Expenditure

Special Investigating Unit v Legodi and Another (LP/01/2020)

Special Investigating Unit v Legodi and Another (LP/01/2020) [2023] ZAST 17 (18 December 2023)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

LP/01/2020

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Tribunal found that the excipients misconstrued the nature of the SIU's claims, which are statutory and not delictual. The particulars of claim, when read as a whole, set out sufficient factual allegations to support the statutory causes of action under the PFMA and related regulations. The complaints regarding vagueness, lack of detail, and duplication were unfounded, as the claims are properly pleaded and the excipients are able to plead thereto. The existence of alternative claims does not render the main claims excipiable, and technical flaws or minor ambiguities do not justify uphold…

Source excerpt

• Special Investigating Units And Special Tribunals Act
• Public Finance Management Act
• Exception Procedure
• Pleading Requirements
• Supply Chain Management
• Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure

Minister of International Relations v Simeka Group (Pty) Ltd (73526/2018)

Minister of International Relations v Simeka Group (Pty) Ltd (73526/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 253 (10 April 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

73526/2018

Judge

Hughes

The High Court dismissed the Department’s condonation application in a legality self-review over a diplomatic property tender, finding the delay in launching the review was inordinate and unexplained.

• Legality Review
• Delay In Review
• Public Procurement
• Self Review By State
• Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure
• Section 217 Constitution

Mbina-Mthembu v Public Protector (208/2018)

Mbina-Mthembu v Public Protector (208/2018) [2019] ZAECBHC 4; [2019] 3 All SA 241 (ECB); 2019 (6) SA 534 (ECB) (7 March 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

208/2018

Judges

C Plasket, V Nqumse

The court held that the Public Protector's findings against the applicant were legally correct and rationally connected to the evidence and law. The diversion of funds from social infrastructure to funeral expenses was unlawful, as Treasury Regulation 6.3.1(c) did not authorise such action and could not override section 43(1) of the PFMA. The procurement process was found to be irregular and did not comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, with the applicant centrally involved in approving payments without adherence to prescribed procedures. The transfer of public funds to a pri…

Source excerpt

• Public Protector Review
• Maladministration
• Error Of Law
• Procurement Irregularities
• Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure

Department of Co-Operative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs, Limpopo Province and Another v Seopela NO and Others (JR226/2012)

Department of Co-Operative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs, Limpopo Province and Another v Seopela NO and Others (JR226/2012) [2015] ZALCJHB 22 (4 February 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR226/2012

Judge

Snyman

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside an arbitration award, holding that senior officials’ settlement recommendation was grossly negligent and dismissal was fair.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Gross Negligence
• Public Finance Management Act
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure
• Review-of-arbitration-award