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
Moinwe v Joe Morolong Local Municipality and Others (2025/032401) [2025] ZALCJHB 180 (9 May 2025)
The Labour Court set aside a municipal council’s rescission of an appointment and re-advertisement decision, finding irrationality and improper MEC interference.
Defenders of the People and Another v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Another (0016/24EC) [2024] ZAEC 10 (9 May 2024)
The applicants failed to submit the required number of supporter signatures by the deadline stipulated in the election timetable, as mandated by section 27(2)(cB) of the Electoral Act. The evidence showed that the applicants' submissions fell short of the 15% quota required for the relevant regions and provincial legislature. The Electoral Commission's exclusion of the applicants was not based on discretion but was a consequence of statutory non-compliance. The applicants' objection did not fall within the scope of section 30 of the Electoral Act, as it did not concern nomination of candidate…
Source excerpt
Fuel Retailers Association v Minister Of Energy and Others (28818/2014) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1067; [2023] 4 All SA 739 (GJ) (22 September 2023)
The High Court set aside the Minister’s RAS decision to the extent it failed to provide ring-fenced entrepreneurial compensation for CORO retailers.
Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (67/2022) [2023] ZASCA 97; 2023 (6) SA 156 (SCA) (13 June 2023)
Section 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act 88 of 1995 is irrational and constitutionally invalid. The provision causes automatic loss of citizenship without notice or legitimate government purpose, and the ministerial discretion under section 6(2) does not cure this irrationality. The Act permits dual citizenship elsewhere and provides for voluntary renunciation, rendering section 6(1)(a) arbitrary and redundant. The loss of citizenship under this section unjustifiably limits the right to citizenship and related constitutional rights, such as political participation, freedom of move…
Source excerpt
NEHAWU obo Ngomane v Department of Employment and Labour and Others (JR 2482/19) [2023] ZALCJHB 174; [2023] 9 BLLR 964 (LC) (8 June 2023)
The court found that the second respondent failed to properly consider all relevant circumstances in refusing reinstatement. The decision focused narrowly on whether the applicant was absent for a calendar month, disregarding mitigating evidence such as the traditional healer's certificate and the applicant's return to work. The respondents did not evaluate less restrictive measures or the proportionality of dismissal, nor did they reflect on alternatives or the applicant's health. The refusal to reinstate was thus irrational and arbitrary, warranting review and setting aside of the decision.
Source excerpt
Industrial Zone (Pty) Ltd v MEC for Economic Development, Environment, Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Gauteng and Another (7746/18) [2023] ZAGPJHC 376 (25 April 2023)
The High Court held that refusing to allow a stream diversion was administrative action under PAJA, but the refusal was rational and reasonable. The review was dismissed.
Saffy N.O and Others v MEC: Northern Cape Provincial Government :Department of Roads and Public Works and Another (1999/2016) [2023] ZANCHC 4 (20 January 2023)
The court found that the decision to settle the litigation and enter into the settlement agreement was taken without proper consideration of the relevant legal defences, specifically the requirements of the State Liability Act and the Institution of Legal Proceedings against certain Organs of State Act. The respondents were not aware of the special pleas and the prescription issues at the time of the decision, rendering the exercise of public power irrational and contrary to the doctrine of legality. The delay in bringing the review application was adequately explained and condoned. The settl…
Source excerpt
Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd v Cape Peninsula University of Technology (20599/21; 4517/22) [2023] ZAWCHC 4; [2023] 1 All SA 731 (WCC); 2023 (3) SA 621 (WCC) (19 January 2023)
The court held that the respondent's decision to cancel the tender process after rescinding the award to Baobab was administrative action within the meaning of PAJA, as it was closely connected to the respondent's public function of providing student accommodation as part of its constitutional and statutory mandate. However, the applicant failed to establish grounds for review under PAJA. The PPPFA and its regulations did not apply to the respondent, as it was not an organ of state for purposes of section 217 of the Constitution or the PPPFA. The applicant did not request or obtain reasons fo…
Source excerpt
Afriforum NPC v Minister of International Relations and Co-operation and Others (12337/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 185 (22 March 2022)
The court found that Afriforum had established a prima facie right to challenge the retention and donation of R50 million to Cuba, as the process was potentially irrational and unlawful. The request for retention was made outside the prescribed period and lacked required documentation, and the AR Fund did not have sufficient funds at the time of approval. The Minister of Finance's own acknowledgment of South Africa's constrained fiscal position supported Afriforum's argument. The court held that irreparable harm would result if the funds were disbursed, as the procurement process was nearly c…
Source excerpt
Motau v Minister of Health and Others (43355/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 155 (15 March 2022)
The High Court dismissed a review of a precautionary suspension, finding the Minister acted lawfully and that the applicant had failed to disclose material facts.
Explore more
