South Africa Case Law

Adonisi and Others v Minister for Transport and Public Works: Western Cape and Others; Minister of Human Settlements and Others v Premier of the Western Cape Province and Others (7908/2017, 12327/2017)

Adonisi and Others v Minister for Transport and Public Works: Western Cape and Others; Minister of Human Settlements and Others v Premier of the Western Cape Province and Others (7908/2017, 12327/2017) [2021] ZAWCHC 73 (23 April 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7908/2017, 12327/2017

Judges

P.A.L. Gamble, M.I. Samela

The court found that the Province and City failed to comply with their constitutional and statutory obligations to foster access to land and adequate housing, and to address spatial apartheid in central Cape Town. The regulations under the Western Cape Land Administration Act were declared unconstitutional and invalid. The sale of the Tafelberg property was set aside, but its cancellation rendered the appeal on that issue moot. The court held that leave to appeal should be granted only on discrete legal issues of public importance, such as the invalidity of the regulations and the constitutio…

Source excerpt

• Right To Housing
• Spatial Apartheid Redress
• Intergovernmental Relations
• Invalidity Of Regulations
• Judicial Review Of Executive Action
• Costs Awards

Freedendal v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (15423 / 2020)

Freedendal v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (15423 / 2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 28; 2021 (1) SACR 634 (WCC) (18 February 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15423 / 2020

Judge

E. D. Wille

The High Court refused interim release and a stay of extradition, holding the applicant’s detention lawful pending review and not justified by health or humanitarian grounds.

• Extradition Act
• Judicial Review Of Executive Action
• Unlawful Detention
• Bail Pending Extradition
• Human Rights In Extradition
• Extradition

Corruption Watch NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others; Nxasana v Corruption Watch NPC and Others (CCT 333/17; CCT 13/18)

Corruption Watch NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others; Nxasana v Corruption Watch NPC and Others (CCT 333/17; CCT 13/18) [2018] ZACC 23; 2018 (10) BCLR 1179 (CC); 2018 (2) SACR 442 (CC) (13 August 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 333/17; CCT 13/18

Judges

Cachalia AJ, Dlodlo AJ, Froneman J, Goliath AJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Petse AJ, Theron J

The Constitutional Court confirmed invalid the settlement removing NDPP Nxasana, upheld the invalidity of Abrahams’ appointment, and struck down parts of section 12 of the NPA Act.

• Independence Of Prosecuting Authority
• Security Of Tenure
• Unlawful Removal From Office
• Settlement Agreement Invalidity
• Judicial Review Of Executive Action
• Constitutional Invalidity Of Statute

South African Reserve Bank and Another v Shuttleworth and Another (CCT194/14, CCT199/14)

South African Reserve Bank and Another v Shuttleworth and Another (CCT194/14, CCT199/14) [2015] ZACC 17; 2015 (5) SA 146 (CC); 2015 (8) BCLR 959 (CC); 78 SATC 23 (18 June 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT194/14, CCT199/14

Judges

Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jappie AJ, Khampepe J, Molemela AJ, Nkabinde J, Theron AJ, Tshiqi AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the exit charge imposed under regulation 10(1)(c) of the Exchange Control Regulations was a regulatory charge, not a tax. Its dominant purpose was to regulate and discourage the export of capital, not to raise revenue for the State. The charge was imposed on a discrete group—those externalising capital above R750,000—and was not collected through the ordinary tax machinery. The fact that it incidentally raised revenue did not alter its regulatory character. Therefore, the charge did not require compliance with the money Bill procedure under sections 75 and 7…

Source excerpt

• Money Bill Procedure
• Exchange Control Regulations
• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• Dominant Purpose Test
• Judicial Review Of Executive Action
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Member for the Executive Committee Department of Local Government and Housing Gauteng Province v Kolombea (9509/2011)

Member for the Executive Committee Department of Local Government and Housing Gauteng Province v Kolombea (9509/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 179 (30 November 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

9509/2011

Judge

Victor

The court found that the applicant failed to provide substantive detail or meaningful argument as to how the suspension of the eviction order pending the applicant's eviction of unlawful occupiers breached the separation of powers doctrine. The order did not direct the applicant to provide alternative accommodation or interfere with policy, but merely required the applicant to take the same procedural steps it had taken for another beneficiary. The respondent's repeated requests for assistance were ignored, and the applicant's inconsistent conduct was not justified by any policy or constituti…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Separation Of Powers
• Eviction Procedure
• Constitutional Right To Housing
• Judicial Review Of Executive Action

Premier of the Western Cape and Others v Overberg District Municipality and Others (801/201)

Premier of the Western Cape and Others v Overberg District Municipality and Others (801/201) [2011] ZASCA 23; 2011 (4) SA 441 (SCA); [2011] 3 All SA 385 (SCA) (18 March 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

801/2010

Judges

Harms, Streicher, Brand, Shongwe, Theron

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 139(4) of the Constitution does not impose a mandatory obligation on the provincial executive to dissolve a municipal council that fails to approve a budget before the start of the financial year. Rather, the section requires the executive to intervene by taking any appropriate steps to ensure approval of the budget, with dissolution being only one of several possible measures. The court found that the provincial executive retains discretion to determine the most suitable intervention, and that the council's authority to approve a budget is not au…

Source excerpt

• Provincial Executive Intervention
• Municipal Budget Approval
• Principle Of Legality
• Judicial Review Of Executive Action
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Local Government Autonomy

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa and Another: In re Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT31/99)

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa and Another: In re Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT31/99) [2000] ZACC 1; 2000 (2) SA 674; 2000 (3) BCLR 241 (25 February 2000)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT31/99

Judges

Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, Cameron AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the President's decision to bring the South African Medicines and Medical Devices Regulatory Authority Act, 132 of 1998, into force was not rationally related to the purpose for which the power was conferred. The necessary regulatory infrastructure, including schedules and regulations, was not in place, rendering the regulatory regime unworkable and exposing the public to significant risks. The President acted in good faith but under a mistaken belief, and the decision was objectively irrational. The Court confirmed that all exercises of public power must co…

Source excerpt

• Doctrine Of Legality
• Ultra Vires
• Presidential Conduct
• Rationality Review
• Judicial Review Of Executive Action

Minister van Wet en Orde v McKenzie (439/87)

Minister van Wet en Orde v McKenzie (439/87) [1989] ZASCA 14 (21 March 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

439/87

Judges

Hefer, Grosskopf, Vivier, Steyn, Eksteen

The appellate court held that the continued detention was lawful and that the High Court wrongly inferred the minister had not considered post-26 December detention.

• Detention Under Emergency Regulations
• Judicial Review Of Executive Action
• Burden Of Proof
• Public Safety
• State Of Emergency
• Administrative-law

Minister of Law and Order and Another v Bishop of Roman Catholic Church of Diocese of Port Elizabeth (165/87)

Minister of Law and Order and Another v Bishop of Roman Catholic Church of Diocese of Port Elizabeth (165/87) [1988] ZASCA 119 (29 September 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

165/87

Judges

Rabie, Joubert, Hefer, Vivier, Steyn

The court held that detention under emergency regulations turned on the officer’s subjective bona fide opinion, and upheld the detention of Father Cornelius.

• Detention Under State Of Emergency
• Subjective Opinion Test
• Onus Of Proof Mala Fides
• Judicial Review Of Executive Action
• Administrative-law
• State-of-emergency