South Africa Case Law

Sayed obo O.M v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (21310/2024)

Sayed obo O.M v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (21310/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 906; [2024] 4 All SA 903 (GP) (13 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21310/2024

Judge

GN Moshoana

The court held that the Tribunal's decision to confirm the rejection of the serious injury assessment report was reasonable and fell within the bounds of its statutory powers. The injuries sustained by the minor child—bruising, swelling, and lacerations—were expressly listed as non-serious under the Road Accident Fund Regulations and thus excluded from compensation for non-pecuniary loss. The Tribunal provided detailed written reasons, which were adequate and enabled the applicant to formulate grounds for review. The applicant failed to prove any of the PAJA grounds for review, including bias…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Serious Injury Assessment
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Adequacy Of Reasons
• Judicial Deference
• Procedural Fairness

Road Accident Fund v Auditor-General of South Africa and Others (1452/2022)

Road Accident Fund v Auditor-General of South Africa and Others (1452/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 358; [2024] 3 All SA 914 (GP) (19 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

1452/2022

Judges

Neukircher, Moshoana, Girdwood

The High Court dismissed the RAF’s review of the Auditor-General’s disclaimer opinion, finding the audit conclusion lawful, rational and procedurally fair.

• Legality Review
• Public Finance Management Act
• Accounting Standards
• Audit Opinion
• Judicial Deference
• Change Of Accounting Policy

Mbali Coal (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (81950/2019)

Mbali Coal (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (81950/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1792; 84 SATC 353 (5 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

81950/2019

Judge

Bam

The High Court dismissed Mbali Coal’s appeal against SARS’s disallowance of diesel refund claims, holding the activities were post-mining and the records were inadequate.

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Customs And Excise Act
• Primary Production Activities
• Recordkeeping Requirements
• Judicial Deference
• Diesel-refund-scheme

Fleet Sync Caltex Joint Venture v Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Others (1884/2020)

Fleet Sync Caltex Joint Venture v Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Others (1884/2020) [2022] ZAECQBHC 45 (15 November 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1884/2020

Judge

O H Ronaasen

The court found that the municipality's delay of 16 months in bringing the counter application to review the tender award was unreasonable and not justified by any adequate explanation. The conduct of the municipality and its officials, including the failure to advise the applicant of the successful bid, engagement in an unlawful objection process, and refusal to deliver the review record, constituted bad faith and egregious maladministration. The court held that the delay could not be overlooked in the interests of justice, and the municipality had not acted in accordance with its higher dut…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Procurement
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Delay In Legality Review
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Judicial Deference
• Punitive Costs

Gannet Works (Pty) Ltd and Others v Middleton N.O and Another (14880/2022)

Gannet Works (Pty) Ltd and Others v Middleton N.O and Another (14880/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 250 (12 April 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

14880/2022

Judge

Maumela

The court found that the applicants satisfied the requirements for urgency due to the timing and economic impact of the notice. However, the substantive relief sought was dismissed. The court held that the definition of 'angling' in the Regulations, which forms part of the Act, clearly authorizes only recreational fishing by manually operating a rod, reel, and line. The use of bait-carrying drones and remote controlled boats falls outside the permitted method and is not authorized by recreational fishing permits endorsed for angling. The public notice did not alter the legal position but clar…

Source excerpt

• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Marine Living Resources Act
• Regulatory Notice
• Recreational Fishing Permits
• Judicial Deference

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (CCT 49/20)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (CCT 49/20) [2021] ZACC 47; [2022] 3 BLLR 209 (CC); (2022) 43 ILJ 530 (CC); 2022 (7) BCLR 813 (CC) (10 December 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 49/20

Judges

Khampepe ADCJ, Jafta J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mhlantla J, Pillay AJ, Theron J, Tlaletsi AJ, Tshiqi J

The Constitutional Court held that the Labour Court has the power to substitute its own decision for that of a CCMA commissioner in demarcation disputes under section 145(4) of the LRA, as there is no statutory exception for demarcation awards. The Court found that the statutory process under section 62 was followed, including consultation with NEDLAC and consideration of written representations. The facts were common cause, and the Labour Court was in as good a position as the commissioner to decide the matter. The only reasonable outcome on the record was that the respondent entities should…

Source excerpt

• Collective Bargaining
• Demarcation Dispute
• Labour Relations Act
• Powers Of Labour Court
• Substitution Of Award
• Judicial Deference

Wings Park Port Elizabeth (Pty) Ltd v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Eastern Cape and Others (3172/2018)

Wings Park Port Elizabeth (Pty) Ltd v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Eastern Cape and Others (3172/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 123 (12 November 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

3172/2018

Judge

O.H. Ronaasen

The court found that the applicant failed to institute review proceedings within the prescribed 180-day period under section 7(1) of PAJA, and the delay was per se unreasonable. The applicant did not provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay, as it was always aware of both the initial and appeal decisions and their reasons. The court held that the interests of justice did not require condonation, given the applicant's conduct and failure to broaden the scope of the first application. On the merits, the court found that the administrative decisions were made in good faith, with d…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Environmental Authorisation
• Judicial Deference
• Delay In Review
• Public Participation
• Noise Nuisance

WBHO v Nelson Mandela University and Another (2121/19)

WBHO v Nelson Mandela University and Another (2121/19) [2019] ZAECPEHC 68 (1 October 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

2121/19

Judge

Swanepoel AJ

The Court found that the applicant's tender was lawfully disqualified for non-responsiveness due to its material deviation from the tender requirements, specifically the inclusion of an escalation clause and risk transfer provisions contrary to the FIDIC Silver Book and SANS10845-3. The first respondent's assessment was rational, bona fide, and intra vires the tender documentation. The extension of the tender validity period and scope was contractually and procedurally permissible. Pre-award negotiations with the preferred bidder were explicitly provided for in the tender documents and did no…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Tender Responsiveness
• Judicial Deference
• Contractual Escalation Clauses

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Arcelomittal South Africa Limited (A103/2019, 86171/2016)

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Arcelomittal South Africa Limited (A103/2019, 86171/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 287 (27 June 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A103/2019, 86171/2016

Judges

WHG van der Linde, N Ranchod, E M Kubushi

High Court appeal against an order lifting suspension pending appeal was dismissed. The court upheld findings of exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm.

• Superior Courts Act Section 18
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Irreparable Harm
• Waste Management Licensing
• Judicial Deference
• Public Importance

Somali Association of South Africa and Others v The Refugee Appeal Board and Others (99766/15)

Somali Association of South Africa and Others v The Refugee Appeal Board and Others (99766/15) [2019] ZAGPPHC 78 (30 January 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

99766/15

Judge

Mlambo JP

The court found that the RAB's decisions were lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. The RAB properly considered both section 3(a) and 3(b) of the Refugees Act, focusing on whether each applicant faced personalized threats or compulsion to flee Somalia. The applicants failed to present evidence of individualized persecution or compulsion due to external aggression or events disturbing public order. The RAB's approach to the burden of proof, credibility, and procedural fairness was consistent with statutory and constitutional requirements. The court emphasized judicial deference to the RAB a…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Refugees Act
• Non Refoulement
• Burden Of Proof
• Procedural Fairness
• Judicial Deference