The Constitutional Court held the 2017 Preferential Procurement Regulations were ultra vires and invalid, and dismissed intervention and direct access applications.
Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (22808/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 308; 2021 (1) SA 553 (GP) (18 June 2020)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
22808/2020
Judge
S A M Baqwa
The exclusion of asylum seekers and special permit holders from eligibility for the Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress grant was found to be unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid. The Court held that section 27 of the Constitution guarantees the right to social assistance to 'everyone', which includes non-citizens lawfully present in South Africa. The relevant regulations, when read purposively and in light of Regulation 9(5), extend eligibility for social relief of distress during a disaster to all affected households, not only citizens, permanent residents, or refugees. The differentiatio…
Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa v Ethekwini Municipality and Others (6957/2010) [2019] ZAKZDHC 24; 2020 (2) SA 235 (KZD) (28 June 2019)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
6957/2010
Judge
Lopes
The court held that Ethekwini Municipality is bound by the regulations promulgated under the Municipal Property Rates Act, which cap rates on public benefit organisations at 25% of the residential rate. The MPRA provides a statutory framework that municipalities must follow, and the categorisation of independent schools as 'business and commercial properties' was unlawful where the Act and regulations specifically provide for public benefit organisations. The consultation process for the 2010 regulations was found to be sufficient and fair, with SALGA and municipalities given opportunities to…
Equal Education and Another v Minister of Basic Education and Others (276/2016) [2018] ZAECBHC 6; [2018] 3 All SA 705 (ECB); 2018 (9) BCLR 1130 (ECB); 2019 (1) SA 421 (ECB) (19 July 2018)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Case number
276/2016
Judge
N Msizi
The Court held that regulation 4(5)(a) of the Regulations unlawfully limits the right to basic education by making the implementation of minimum norms and standards subject to the resources and cooperation of other government agencies. This qualification undermines the immediacy and enforceability of the right, renders government unaccountable, and is inconsistent with the Constitution, SASA, and the 2013 court order. The Minister failed to justify the limitation under section 36 of the Constitution and did not provide a rational basis for the prioritisation and exclusion mechanisms in the re…
Stern NO and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources (5762/2015) [2017] ZAECGHC 109 (17 October 2017)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
5762/2015
Judge
G H Bloem
The High Court set aside the Petroleum Regulations for Petroleum Exploration and Production, 2015, finding the Minister lacked authority and the public participation process was unfair.
South African Poultry Association v Minister of Agriculture (39597/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 862 (21 September 2016)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
39597/2016
Judge
Fabricius
The court found that the process leading to the promulgation of the new poultry brining Regulations was fair, involving extensive consultation with stakeholders over several years. The Minister considered all relevant views, including scientific and economic reports, and exercised a proper discretion in setting the 15% brining cap as a reasonable compromise. The court held that there was no requirement for a scientifically optimal limit, only that the decision be rationally related to consumer protection. The economic impact was considered, and enforcement was feasible. The application for re…
South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Others (CCT65/06) [2007] ZACC 10; 2007 (5) SA 400 (CC); 2007 (8) BCLR 863 (CC) ; [2007] 9 BLLR 785 (CC) ; (2007) 28 ILJ 1909 (CC) (30 May 2007)
The Constitutional Court held that the Department of Defence may not unilaterally withdraw from the Military Bargaining Council or impose preconditions for its return, as the regulations and the MBC Constitution require disputes to be resolved through established procedures. The SANDF is not under a duty to bargain with SANDU on the content of regulations, as lawmaking is not subject to collective bargaining. The Court found that regulation 8(b) unjustifiably limits freedom of expression and is invalid. Regulations 25(a), 25(b), and 27, which prohibit union representation in grievance and dis…
