Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Van Vuren v Stellenbosch Municipality (72/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 205 (2 August 2023)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over removal of a vehicle parked on a sidewalk, holding the matter moot and making no order as to costs.
South African Nursing Council v Khanyisa Nursing School (Pty) Ltd and Another (835/2022) [2023] ZASCA 86; 2024 (1) SA 103 (SCA) (2 June 2023)
The court held that “any calendar year” in nursing regulations means any 12-month period, not necessarily January to December, and dismissed the appeal.
Swallows FC v Wowowo and Another (045818/2022 ; 046387/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 949 (9 December 2022)
The court held that, under the NSL Handbook and SAFA regulatory framework, the default position is that the lodgment of an appeal to the SAFA Arbitration Tribunal does not suspend the operation of a DRC award in non-disciplinary matters. Article 125(2) of the SAFA Disciplinary Code does not apply to such appeals. However, an aggrieved party may request the arbitrator to suspend the award pending the outcome of the appeal, as the arbitrator's powers are sufficiently broad under Article 81(11) of the SAFA Disciplinary Code and Article 58(6) of the SAFA Statute. Temporary interdicts were granted…
Source excerpt
South African Nursing Council v Khanyisa Nursing School (Pty) Ltd and Another (A205/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 837 (24 October 2022)
The majority held that Khanyisa Nursing School failed to prove exceptional circumstances or irreparable harm justifying the operation of the order pending appeal. The regulatory framework requires that the 44 weeks of training occur within a calendar year, and the court cannot grant an order contrary to the regulations. The alleged financial harm and prejudice to students and staff were not substantiated with sufficient evidence, and any harm suffered was not irreparable, as training could commence in 2023. The fact that SANC allowed other institutions to commence mid-year did not create a pr…
Source excerpt
Bouwer N.O and Another v Master of the High Court, Pretoria (2937/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 56; 2022 (6) SA 204 (GP) (31 January 2022)
The court found that the proceeds from the sale of capital assets, such as the ABSA cheque deposit, motor vehicle, and recovered debt, do not constitute income in the ordinary sense but remain capital. The applicants were not entitled to record these proceeds as income or to charge a 6% fee thereon without the prior consent and approval of the Master, as required by the court order and appointment letters. The applicants failed to comply with the regulatory requirements, specifically the need to record realized capital assets under the capital account before any transfer to the income account…
Source excerpt
Chairperson, Eastern Cape Gambling and Betting Board and Another v Vukani Gaming Eastern Cape (Pty) Ltd and Others (1338/2019; 1366/2019; 119/2020) [2021] ZASCA 180 (17 December 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Regulation 59(3)(a) of the Eastern Cape Gambling Regulations requires the Board to be satisfied, on a province-wide basis, that issuing additional limited gambling machine licences will not lead to over-saturation. The Board's assessment is aggregative, not locality-specific. The study relied upon by the Board, despite its limitations, provided a rational basis for the Board's conclusion that the province was not over-saturated. The challenge to the RFP based on alleged over-saturation in certain municipalities was rejected because Regulation 59(3)(a) doe…
Source excerpt
Nedbank Limited v Houtbosplaas (Pty) Ltd and Another (68087/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 220 (17 March 2020)
The Court held that Nedbank's grounds for leave to appeal were without merit. The interpretation of Regulation 7(f)(ii) requires reference to the Memorandum of Incorporation to determine voting rights, including those of preferential shareholders. Nedbank's exclusion of preferential shareholders in its calculation was incorrect. The Court's reference to section 218(4) of FICA was obiter and not dispositive; the main judgment was based on the interpretation of Regulation 7(f)(ii). Regulation 15 does not restrict financial institutions from consulting official sources for verification of shareh…
Source excerpt
River Palace Tab CC t/a River palace TAB v KwaZulu-Natal Gaming and Betting Board and Another (6027/2017P) [2018] ZAKZPHC 31 (8 August 2018)
The court found that the Board did not misconstrue the provisions of Regulation 107 nor make an error of law in its interpretation. The Board correctly exercised its discretion, considering the association between the applicant and the existing licensee, which would have resulted in circumvention of the regulatory limit on LPMs per premises. The familial, business, and property ties between the applicant and River Palace Tattersalls constituted an association within the meaning of Regulation 107(3), justifying the refusal of the licence. The Board did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or irr…
Source excerpt
Sun International (South Africa) Limited v Chairperson of the North West Gambling Review Tribunal and Others (M255/2017) [2018] ZANWHC 62 (25 May 2018)
The court found that Freeplay credits are non-cashable and created by SISA without any monetary value received from players. As such, their use does not increase SISA's revenue and cannot be considered an 'amount deducted from a player's slot account' for the purposes of calculating the drop under Regulation 73(3). The purpose of the regulation is to impose a levy on actual revenue received, not on credits that do not improve the licensee's financial position. The Tribunal and Board's decisions were materially influenced by errors of law and are reviewable under PAJA. The court held that it w…
Source excerpt
Net1 Applied Technologies South Africa and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others; Finbond Mutual v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others; Smart Life Insurance Company Limited v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others; Information -Technology Consultants (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others (43557/16; 46024/16; 46278/16; 47447/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 356 (9 May 2017)
The court held that the respondents' interpretation of regulations 21 and 26A is untenable. The regulations, when read with section 20 of the Social Assistance Act, do not restrict beneficiaries from operating their bank accounts, including making electronic payments and debit orders. Once the grant is paid into a beneficiary's bank account, it is subject to the normal rules of banking and the account holder's instructions. The respondents have no control over these accounts, and their interpretation would lead to insensible and unbusinesslike results, contrary to the purpose of the regulatio…
Source excerpt
Explore more
