South Africa Case Law

Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC & others (22061/2020)

Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC & others (22061/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 57; [2021] HIPR 173 (GJ) (21 May 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22061/2020

Judge

Fisher

The court held that the ARB's exercise of public power over non-members is unconstitutional because it is not sourced in law, violating the principle of legality. The ad-alert mechanism, which compels ARB members to refuse advertising from non-members subject to ARB rulings, constitutes an unlawful restraint of trade and infringes property rights. The ARB's procedures under clauses 8 and 9 of its Code mirror legal disputes such as passing-off, copyright, and trade mark infringement, which should be adjudicated by courts or independent tribunals as required by section 34 of the Constitution. T…

Source excerpt

• Access To Courts
• Administrative Action
• Advertising Regulation
• Unlawful Competition
• Restraint Of Trade
• Judicial Authority

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v Gcora (992/2016)

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v Gcora (992/2016) [2018] ZAECPEHC 34; 2019 (2) SACR 451 (ECP) (10 July 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

992/2016

Judges

Mbenenge, M Makaula, L Ntsepe

The respondent's repeated and extreme remarks about the judiciary and municipal officials, made in various communications, constitute contempt ex facie curiae by scandalising the court and undermining judicial authority. The apology and contrition expressed by the respondent are mitigating factors, but do not negate the contemptuous nature of his conduct. The applicant has established a clear right to protection from ongoing defamation and derogatory remarks, and the requirements for an interdict have been satisfied. The respondent's counter-application lacks merit, as he has failed to provid…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Scandalising The Court
• Interdict
• Defamation
• Judicial Authority
• Costs Order

Member of the Executive Council for Health, Gauteng v Lushaba (CCT156/15)

Member of the Executive Council for Health, Gauteng v Lushaba (CCT156/15) [2016] ZACC 16; 2016 (8) BCLR 1069 (CC); 2017 (1) SA 106 (CC) (23 June 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 156/15

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Bosielo, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Zondo

The Constitutional Court set aside High Court orders that imposed personal costs on non-parties, holding that judicial power cannot be delegated to a litigant and fair hearing rights must be respected.

• Judicial Authority
• Fair Hearing
• Personal Costs Orders
• Section 165
• Section 34
• Judicial-authority

Southern Africa Litigation Centre v Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development and Others (27740/2015)

Southern Africa Litigation Centre v Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development and Others (27740/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 402; 2016 (1) SACR 161 (GP); 2015 (5) SA 1 (GP); [2015] 3 All SA 505 (GP); 2015 (9) BCLR 1108 (GP) (24 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27740/2015

Judges

D Mlambo, E A P Ledwaba, H J Fabricius

The Full Court held that South Africa was under a clear legal obligation, both under international law (Rome Statute) and domestic law (Implementation Act), to arrest and detain President Omar Al Bashir upon his entry into the country, pursuant to ICC warrants for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The Cabinet resolution and Ministerial notice, which purported to grant immunity to President Bashir during the AU Summit, could not lawfully suspend these obligations. The host agreement and notice did not confer immunity on heads of state, and the Immunities Act did not domesticat…

Source excerpt

• Rome Statute Implementation
• Diplomatic Immunity
• Enforcement Of International Arrest Warrants
• Separation Of Powers
• Rule Of Law
• Judicial Authority