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
Minister of Water and Sanitation and Another v Water Tribunal and Others (109636/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 624 (23 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed a review of a Water Tribunal decision, holding the application was instituted more than 180 days late under PAJA and could not proceed.
Thulo v Nala Local Municipality (2840/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 75 (12 March 2025)
The court found that the council's resolution terminating the applicant's acting appointment constituted administrative action as defined by PAJA. However, the applicant failed to institute review proceedings within the 180-day period prescribed by section 7(1) of PAJA, having waited eight months after receiving the termination letter without providing any explanation or seeking condonation for the delay. The court held that absent compliance with PAJA's timeframes, the application could not succeed. The applicant's entitlement to acting allowance and other relief was rendered moot by the fai…
Source excerpt
National Council of and for Persons with Disabilities v Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (49918/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 165 (22 February 2024)
The High Court dismissed a PAJA review of ICASA’s disability code for undue delay, finding the application out of time and lacking a full explanation.
Kir Projects v Actophambili Roads and Others (5857/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 409 (26 October 2023)
The court found that the applicant failed to prosecute the review application with the required urgency, resulting in an unreasonable delay as contemplated by section 7(1) of PAJA. The delay exceeded the statutory 180-day period, and the applicant did not provide sufficient justification for condonation or demonstrate that the interests of justice required the court to entertain the matter. Furthermore, the contracts in question had already been fully executed and payments made, rendering the application moot and without practical effect. The court concluded that it lacked authority to adjudi…
Source excerpt
Makhathini Medical Waste (Pty) Ltd and Another v MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal and Others (8721/21P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 151 (3 August 2023)
High Court review of a KwaZulu-Natal health-care waste tender failed, with the court finding objective criteria, valid bid extensions, and a late Buhle review.
Kona v Premier Eastern Cape and Others (3277/2018) [2023] ZAECMKHC 75 (20 June 2023)
The court dismissed a PAJA review challenge to traditional leadership recognition for being brought far out of time, refusing to condone the delay.
Mohapi and Others v Registrar Free State Transport and Others (2283/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 341 (2 December 2022)
Review application dismissed because the applicants filed outside PAJA’s 180-day limit and sought no condonation for the delay.
Siyakhuphuka Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Ports Regulator of South Africa and Others (5520/2016) [2022] ZAKZDHC 41 (16 September 2022)
The court found that the applicant's review application was instituted outside the 180-day period prescribed by section 7(1) of PAJA, rendering the delay unreasonable per se. The applicant failed to advance any compelling reasons why the interests of justice required condonation for the late filing. The court held that, in the absence of such justification, it had no authority to entertain the review application, and the delay validated the administrative decision. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a reviewable decision by Transnet regarding the approval of a container terminal at Richard…
Source excerpt
Venioscope (Pty) Ltd v Director-General of the Department of Trade and Industry and Others (20911/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 58 (22 April 2022)
The court upheld jurisdiction but dismissed a PAJA review of a cancelled film incentive claim because the applicant delayed too long and sought no condonation.
Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Sasol Chevron Holdings Limited (1044/2020) [2022] ZASCA 56; 85 SATC 216 (22 April 2022)
The SCA held that Sasol Chevron’s PAJA review was out of time because it was served after the 180-day period and no extension under section 9(2) was sought.
Explore more
