South Africa Case Law

HOD: Western Cape Education Department and Others v Equal Education Law Centre and Others (1003/2023)

HOD: Western Cape Education Department and Others v Equal Education Law Centre and Others (1003/2023) [2025] ZASCA 116 (11 August 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1003/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Mbatha, Windell, Bloem, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Rule 53(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court is limited to the production of records relevant to the administrative decision subject to judicial review. The High Court erred by granting an order compelling the Department to produce documents and information unrelated to the specific review relief sought, including materials intended to support declaratory and mandamus claims. Such relief requires separate procedural mechanisms and cannot be obtained through Rule 53. The Department had provided a record sufficient for the review of its placement decisions f…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 53
• Judicial Review
• Right To Education
• Mandamus Relief
• Declaratory Relief
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another v Kruger (D10552/2023)

National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another v Kruger (D10552/2023) [2025] ZAKZDHC 44 (18 July 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D10552/2023

Judge

Reddi AJ

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a ruling setting aside POCA prosecution authorisation, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

• Leave To Appeal
• Rationality Review
• Prosecutorial Discretion
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Judicial Review
• Leave-to-appeal

Jaffas Bay Fishing CC v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others (7828/24)

Jaffas Bay Fishing CC v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others (7828/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 301 (16 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7828/24

Judge

Mantame

High Court review of a refusal to allocate sardine fishing rights succeeded because the Minister’s scoring of CSI contributions was opaque, irrational, and inadequately explained.

• Marine Living Resources Act
• Allocation Of Fishing Rights
• Judicial Review
• Reasonableness And Rationality
• Scoring Criteria
• Corporate Social Investment

Hlamandana and Another v Premier, Eastern Cape Provincial Government and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2227/2023)

Hlamandana and Another v Premier, Eastern Cape Provincial Government and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2227/2023) [2025] ZAECMHC 61 (8 July 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2227/2023

Judge

Zono

The court found that the applicants' grounds for leave to appeal were without merit. The remittal order was justified under Section 8(1)(c)(i) of PAJA and Section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution, which empower courts to grant just and equitable remedies, including remittal for reconsideration by the administrator. The applicants' argument that the remittal was not sought by any party was rejected, as the relief sought was broad enough to encompass such an order. The court held that the fourth respondent was lawfully appointed and the proceedings were still extant, thus he was not functus offici…

Source excerpt

• Remittal Of Administrative Action
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Judicial Review
• Punitive Costs
• Statutory Interpretation

Jacobus Nicolaas van Coller t/a JN van Coller Boerdery v The Member of the Executive Council for Economic, Small Business Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Free State and Another (5750/2024)

Jacobus Nicolaas van Coller t/a JN van Coller Boerdery v The Member of the Executive Council for Economic, Small Business Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Free State and Another (5750/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 191 (26 June 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5750/2024

Judges

Mhlambi, Ntanga

The court found that the respondents failed to afford the applicant an opportunity to make representations regarding the identity of the applicant in the s 24G application, resulting in procedural unfairness. The conflicting information in the application forms created ambiguity as to whether the applicant was an individual or a firm, and the respondents did not resolve this by inviting further representations. The Constitution and PAJA require administrative action to be procedurally fair, and the respondents' failure to do so rendered their decision reviewable. The court declined to substit…

Source excerpt

• National Environmental Management Act
• Administrative Fines
• Procedural Fairness
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review
• Audi Alteram Partem

Registrar of Labour Relations v Simunye Workers Forum (JA115/2023)

Registrar of Labour Relations v Simunye Workers Forum (JA115/2023) [2025] ZALAC 40; - (26 June 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA115/2023

Judges

Savage ADJP, Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Mooki AJA

The Labour Appeal Court found that SWF's constitution does not comply with the mandatory requirements of section 95(5) of the Labour Relations Act. Specifically, the constitution fails to establish the office of secretary and define its functions, does not provide for office-bearers, officials, or trade union representatives as defined in the Act, and lacks prescribed procedures for their nomination, election, removal, and appeals. The Court held that the ad hoc appointment of a secretary at each meeting does not constitute the establishment of an office, and the absence of officials or offic…

Source excerpt

• Trade Union Registration
• Freedom Of Association
• Section 95 Requirements
• Genuineness Guidelines
• Constitutional Rights
• Judicial Review

Astron Energy (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (20306/2022)

Astron Energy (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (20306/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 245 (9 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20306/2022

Judge

Moosa AJ

The High Court dismissed SARS’s exceptions to Astron Energy’s combined customs tariff appeal and PAJA review, with costs, holding the pleading was sufficiently framed.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Tariff Determination Appeal
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Exception Procedure
• Internal Administrative Appeal
• Judicial Review

Shoprite Supermarkets (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Liquor Board and Others (EL599/2024)

Shoprite Supermarkets (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Liquor Board and Others (EL599/2024) [2025] ZAECELLC 15 (5 June 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL599/2024

Judge

Hartle

The court held that section 22(2)(d)(i) of the Eastern Cape Liquor Act requires an applicant for transfer of a registration certificate to provide proof of service of notice on the ward committee, but does not impose a duty on the applicant to procure the ward committee's report. The statutory obligation to consult with the community and submit a report rests solely on the ward committee. The Board's refusal of Massmart's application on the basis that the applicant failed to action or cause the ward committee's report was a misinterpretation of the Act and unlawful. Shoprite was not required…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Liquor Licensing
• Mandamus
• Community Consultation
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies

Mambafula v Alfred Nzo District Municipality (2715/2024)

Mambafula v Alfred Nzo District Municipality (2715/2024) [2025] ZAECMHC 45 (29 May 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2715/2024

Judge

Nkele

The court found that the respondent's decision not to appoint the applicant and to re-advertise the post was an administrative action as defined under PAJA, as it was taken by an organ of state exercising public power in terms of section 56 of the Municipal Systems Act and had a direct, external legal effect on the applicant's rights. The respondent failed to provide any factual or legal basis for its decision, did not disclose or investigate the alleged irregularities, and acted on unsubstantiated information. The council did not perform a legislative or executive function but implemented le…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Appointments
• Judicial Review
• Rationality Review
• Remedies Under Paja

Mmamothama v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (2024/023448)

Mmamothama v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (2024/023448) [2025] ZAGPPHC 685 (29 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024/023448

Judge

Swanepoel

The court found that the Appeal Tribunal acted outside its powers by determining causation, which is a function reserved for the courts. The Tribunal failed to consider the WPI assessment, which was above the statutory threshold for serious injury, and instead focused solely on the narrative test. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations and ignored relevant ones, rendering the decision reviewable under PAJA. The Supreme Court of Appeal has categorically held that the Tribunal cannot have the final say on causation. Accordingly, the Tribunal's decision to reject the…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Serious Injury Assessment
• Judicial Review
• Causation
• Administrative Action