South Africa Case Law

MEC for Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal and Another v Mtubatuba Local Municipality and Others (D2562/2023)

MEC for Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal and Another v Mtubatuba Local Municipality and Others (D2562/2023) [2023] ZAKZDHC 56 (15 August 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D2562/2023

Judge

Mathenjwa AJ

The court found that the respondents' conduct in preventing the second applicant from assuming his duties as ministerial representative at the Mtubatuba Local Municipality constituted unlawful self-help and offended the rule of law. The dispute did not fall under Chapter 4 of the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act because it related to an intervention under section 139 of the Constitution. The appointment of the second applicant was valid and extended, and the respondents had no lawful basis to obstruct him. The applicants were entitled to approach the court for relief, and the respond…

Source excerpt

• Section 139 Intervention
• Ministerial Representative Appointment
• Intergovernmental Dispute
• Self Help
• Rule Of Law

Enoch Mgijima Local Municipality and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Others (1222/2021)

Enoch Mgijima Local Municipality and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Others (1222/2021) [2023] ZAECMKHC 24 (14 February 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1222/2021

Judge

JE Smith

The High Court dismissed a municipality’s rescission bid against an order confirming its debt settlement with Eskom, finding no common mistake under Rule 42(1)(c).

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Acknowledgment Of Debt
• Municipal Indebtedness
• Electricity Supply
• Intergovernmental Dispute
• Uniform Rule 42

Ithuba Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Lottostar (Pty) Ltd and Others (A46/2020)

Ithuba Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Lottostar (Pty) Ltd and Others (A46/2020) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 39 (30 August 2021)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A46/2020

Judges

Mashile, Roelofse

The court held that neither Ithuba Holdings nor the National Lotteries Commission are organs of state for purposes of section 41 of the Constitution and the Framework Act, as the Commission is a public institution excluded from the Framework Act's application. Consequently, the dispute is not intergovernmental and the requirement to exhaust alternative dispute resolution mechanisms does not apply. The preliminary defence of non-joinder was rejected, as the relief sought is against Lottostar only and does not affect other bookmakers or authorities. On the merits, the court found that Lottostar…

Source excerpt

• Lotteries Act Interpretation
• Intergovernmental Dispute
• Non Joinder
• Unlawful Gambling
• Exclusive Licensing

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Emfuleni Local Municipality and Others (76183/2019)

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Emfuleni Local Municipality and Others (76183/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 546 (21 August 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

76183/2019

Judge

LI Vorster

The court found that the defences raised by the first and second defendants regarding the validity of the agreements and the calculation of the debt were disingenuous and lacked merit. The main defence based on alleged non-compliance with intergovernmental dispute procedures was rejected, as the dispute had already been declared and ventilated in previous litigation, with the court referring the matter for resolution under section 41(3) of the Constitution. As the dispute remained unresolved after six months, the plaintiff was entitled to approach the court for relief. The plaintiff's claims…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Acknowledgement Of Debt
• Electricity Supply Agreement
• Intergovernmental Dispute
• Constitutional Compliance

City of Cape Town v National Energy Regulator of South Africa (51765/17)

City of Cape Town v National Energy Regulator of South Africa (51765/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC 800 (11 August 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

51765/17

Judge

Windell

The court held that the disputes between the City, the Minister, and NERSA are intergovernmental disputes as defined by section 41 of the Constitution and the Framework Act. All parties are organs of state, and the dispute concerns statutory powers and functions. The City failed to comply with the mandatory dispute resolution procedures prescribed by the Framework Act before approaching the court. The court found no urgency or exceptional circumstances justifying condonation of non-compliance. The City's efforts to engage with the Minister and NERSA were insufficient and did not constitute re…

Source excerpt

• Electricity Regulation Act
• Intergovernmental Dispute
• Cooperative Government
• Ministerial Determination
• Licensing Of Power Generation
• Constitutional Validity

MEC for Co-operative Governance & Traditional Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal v Edumeni Municipality and Others (1425/17)

MEC for Co-operative Governance & Traditional Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal v Edumeni Municipality and Others (1425/17) [2017] ZAKZPHC 38 (24 March 2017)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

1425/17

Judge

Olsen

The court held that Endumeni Municipality’s indefinite extension of an acting municipal manager was unlawful because it was made without the required MEC approval.

• Municipal Manager Appointment
• Ultra Vires Decision
• Intergovernmental Dispute
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Declaratory And Interdictory Relief
• Municipal-manager-appointment

Ngwathe Local Municipality v Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd and Others (4425/2014)

Ngwathe Local Municipality v Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd and Others (4425/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 104 (28 May 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4425/2014

Judge

A. F. Jordaan

The court dismissed Ngwathe Municipality’s urgent bid to stop Eskom disconnecting electricity, and allowed disconnection if arrears were not paid, subject to notice.

• Intergovernmental Dispute
• Municipal Arrears
• Electricity Supply Interruption
• Constitutional Duties
• Contempt Of Court
• Municipal-arrears

Gauteng Gambling Board and Another v MEC for Economic Development:Gauteng Provincial Governement Corporation Ltd (01563/2012)

Gauteng Gambling Board and Another v MEC for Economic Development:Gauteng Provincial Governement Corporation Ltd (01563/2012) [2012] ZAGPJHC 96 (8 May 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

01563/2012

Judge

Mathopo

The court found that the applicants failed to provide any cogent reasons for refusing to relocate as instructed by the respondent, and their reliance on the pending Public Protector investigation was misplaced. The respondent complied with all procedural requirements under the Gauteng Gambling Act, including affording the Board an opportunity to be heard and consulting the relevant standing committee. The EXCO's decision to rationalise agencies was based on a rational and lawful business case study, and the respondent's instructions were neither irrational nor procedurally unfair. The applica…

Source excerpt

• Termination Of Membership
• Procedural Fairness
• Public Finance Management Act
• Intergovernmental Dispute
• Judicial Review

Uthukela District Municipality and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT7/02)

Uthukela District Municipality and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT7/02) [2002] ZACC 11; 2002 (11) BCLR 1220 ; 2003 (1) SA 678 (CC) (12 June 2002)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT7/02

Judges

Du Plessis AJ, Chaskalson CJ, Langa DCJ, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya AJ

The Constitutional Court declined to confirm a High Court invalidity order about municipal revenue sharing after the law was repealed and the dispute was settled.

• Division Of Revenue
• Equitable Share
• Intergovernmental Dispute
• Cooperative Government
• Confirmation Proceedings
• Equitable-share

National Gambling Board v Premier of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (CCT32/01)

National Gambling Board v Premier of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (CCT32/01) [2001] ZACC 8; 2002 (2) BCLR 156; 2002 (2) SA 715 (21 December 2001)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT32/01

Judges

Du Plessis AJ, Chaskalson CJ, Langa DCJ, Ackermann J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, Skweyiya AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the dispute between the National Gambling Board and the Premier of KwaZulu-Natal does not concern constitutional status, powers, or functions derived directly from the Constitution, but rather the interpretation and application of national and provincial legislation. Therefore, the matter does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under section 167(4)(a). The Court further found that the parties failed to comply with their constitutional obligations of cooperative government by not making meaningful efforts to resolve the dis…

Source excerpt

• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Cooperative Government
• Intergovernmental Dispute
• Interim Interdict
• Interpretation Of Legislation
• Gambling Regulation