South Africa Case Law

Hlaniki Investment Holding (Pty) Ltd v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (102773/2023)

Hlaniki Investment Holding (Pty) Ltd v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (102773/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 376 (8 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

102773/2023

Judges

Twala, Mokose, Mohosi

The court held that it was entitled to raise the issue of compliance with section 33(1) of the MFMA mero motu, as the contract's duration and its implications for public funds made the point of law necessary and apparent from the evidence. The SLA, on its face and as confirmed by the parties' conduct, extended beyond three financial years, triggering the requirements of section 33(1). The contract was not regularised in accordance with the statutory requirements, rendering it invalid. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the contract should be interpreted to uphold legality, findi…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Finance Management Act
• Contract Interpretation
• Public Procurement
• Illegality Of Contract
• Service Level Agreement

AD All CC t/a Millenium Bodyguards v Kapa Bokoni Trading and Projects 10 CC (A 58/2024)

AD All CC t/a Millenium Bodyguards v Kapa Bokoni Trading and Projects 10 CC (A 58/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 803 (13 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A 58/2024

Judges

Swanepoel, Van der Schyff

The appellant rendered security services for remuneration without being registered as a security service provider, in direct contravention of section 20(1)(a) of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act. Section 20(3) explicitly invalidates any contract inconsistent with this requirement, and section 38(3) makes such conduct an offence. The argument that control by registered persons or entities suffices is rejected; the entity rendering the service must itself be registered. The agreement between the parties is both invalid and illegal. The appellant cannot claim payment under the contra…

Source excerpt

• Private Security Industry Regulation Act
• Illegality Of Contract
• Unjust Enrichment
• Pari Delicto Rule
• Reinstatement Of Appeal

Nzimande and Another v Newcastle Municipality (DA1/2022)

Nzimande and Another v Newcastle Municipality (DA1/2022) [2024] ZALAC 34; [2024] 11 BLLR 1120 (LAC) (10 July 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA1/2022

Judges

Van Niekerk JA, Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Govindjee AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that the municipal manager acted unlawfully and without authority when extending the appellants' fixed-term contracts in direct contravention of a clear council resolution. The principle of legality, as entrenched in the Constitution and relevant statutes, required the manager to act within the council's policy directions. The Labour Court was correct to review and set aside the extensions under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA, and the error in classification did not affect the outcome. The review was instituted within a reasonable time, and procedural irregularities…

Source excerpt

• Illegality Of Contract
• Municipal Manager Authority
• Review Under Lra Section 158 1 H
• Principle Of Legality
• Retrospective Invalidity
• Costs In Labour Appeal

Metropol Consulting (PTY) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (21725/2018)

Metropol Consulting (PTY) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (21725/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 857 (3 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21725/2018

Judge

Constantinides

The court found that the applicant's proposed amendment did not remedy the defects previously identified by Opperman J, as it failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate a lawful deviation from procurement processes or the legality of the alleged tacit agreement. The omission of material facts and documents, including the SCMP, was held to be prejudicial and indicative of bad faith. The court determined that the requirements for a lawful deviation under the SCMP and regulations were not satisfied, and that Metropol could not be considered a sole provider. The allegations of an emergency a…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Specific Performance
• Municipal Procurement
• Illegality Of Contract
• Section 217 Constitution
• Bad Faith Pleading

Ntiyiso Consulting CC v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality (1215/2019)

Ntiyiso Consulting CC v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality (1215/2019) [2022] ZAFSHC 206 (22 August 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1215/2019

Judge

C Reinders

The court dismissed a consulting firm’s claim against a municipality and declared its appointment and service level agreement invalid for non-compliance with procurement rules.

• Municipal Procurement
• Regulation 32
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Service Level Agreement
• Illegality Of Contract
• Competitive Bidding

Swart v Bergh N.O and Others (A79/2020)

Swart v Bergh N.O and Others (A79/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 64 (25 March 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A79/2020

Judges

JP Daffue, M Matshaya

Appeal over lease unlawfulness allowed. The High Court found the zoning-based business lease illegal and unenforceable, granted condonation, and dismissed the claims with costs.

• Illegality Of Contract
• Zoning Scheme Violation
• Condonation
• Unenforceability Of Lease
• Municipal Charges
• Statutory Interpretation

Shellville Traders CC v Centennial Trading Company 46 (Pty) Ltd (1233/21)

Shellville Traders CC v Centennial Trading Company 46 (Pty) Ltd (1233/21) [2021] ZAECGHC 109 (25 November 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1233/21

Judge

M Beneke

The High Court granted condonation for a late notice of appeal, finding the delay not inordinate and the appeal prima facie arguable.

• Condonation For Late Appeal
• Interpretation Of Contract
• Liquor Licensing
• Illegality Of Contract
• Magistrates Court Appeal
• Statutory Compliance

Leppan N.O and Others v King (2471/2020)

Leppan N.O and Others v King (2471/2020) [2021] ZAECGHC 67 (20 July 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

2471/2020

Judge

R Krüger

The High Court held that a campsite-use agreement on agricultural land was illegal under the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act and ordered removal of the chalet van.

• Subdivision Of Agricultural Land Act
• Illegality Of Contract
• Ejectment
• Public Policy
• Unjust Enrichment
• Subdivision-of-agricultural-land-act

Metropol Consulting (Pty) Ltd v City of Jhb Metropolitan Municipality and Another (21725/2018)

Metropol Consulting (Pty) Ltd v City of Jhb Metropolitan Municipality and Another (21725/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 207 (11 June 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21725/2018

Judge

I Opperman

The court found that the refusal of the amendment was not appealable as it did not constitute a definitive finding of law and left the plaintiff free to pursue alternative pleaded cases. The proposed amendment failed to disclose a legal and enforceable cause of action, as the alleged tacit agreement was illegal ex facie the declaration and neither policy considerations nor entitlement to just and equitable relief formed part of the pleaded case. The court held that illegality may be determined from the declaration alone and that it is the duty of the court to raise such issues mero motu. Even…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Appealability
• Illegality Of Contract
• Tacit Agreement

Metropol Consulting (Pty) Ltd v City of JHB Metropolitan Municipality and Another (21725/2018)

Metropol Consulting (Pty) Ltd v City of JHB Metropolitan Municipality and Another (21725/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 389 (24 April 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21725/2018

Judge

I Opperman

The court held that Metropol's proposed amendment to its declaration was excipiable as it failed to disclose a valid cause of action. The pleaded facts established that the tacit agreement was concluded in violation of section 217 of the Constitution and relevant procurement legislation, rendering it illegal and unenforceable. South African law does not recognise specific performance of an illegal contract, and the ex turpi causa rule precludes enforcement. Section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution does not automatically entitle a party to just and equitable relief; such relief must be properly p…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Specific Performance
• Illegality Of Contract
• Municipal Procurement
• Tacit Agreement