South Africa Case Law

Drakensberg Farms (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2022-014624)

Drakensberg Farms (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2022-014624) [2025] ZAGPPHC 199 (19 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022-014624

Judge

Botha

The court held that the applicable time limit for review of the forfeiture decision was the 90-day period prescribed by Regulation 22D(b) of the Exchange Control Regulations, not the 180-day period under PAJA. The SARB was not competent to represent to the applicants that PAJA applied. The court found no basis to depart from previous judgments of the division, which held that forfeiture orders under the Exchange Control Regulations are governed by the Act and Regulations to the exclusion of PAJA. As the application was launched outside the 90-day period, it was time-barred. The constitutional…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Constitutional Invalidity Challenge
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

NT55 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v MEC Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Gauteng Provincial Government and Others (13473/2020)

NT55 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v MEC Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Gauteng Provincial Government and Others (13473/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 399 (16 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13473/2020

Judge

Vally

The High Court dismissed two consolidated PAJA review applications over a road project environmental authorisation, finding unreasonable delay and failure to exhaust internal remedies.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Delay In Review
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Environmental Authorisation
• Public Participation
• Judicial Review Time Limits

Yanling International Trade CC v South African Reserve Bank

Yanling International Trade CC v South African Reserve Bank [2023] ZAGPPHC 79; 56220/21 (13 February 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56220/21

Judge

LG Kilmartin

The court held that the review application was governed by the Currency and Exchanges Act and the Exchange Control Regulations, which prescribe a 90-day time limit for instituting legal proceedings to challenge a forfeiture decision. The applicant's argument that the 90-day limit applies only to action proceedings and not applications was rejected; the term 'action' in Regulation 22D(b) must be interpreted broadly to include all forms of legal proceedings, including applications. The court found that the applicant launched its review application more than two months after the expiry of the 90…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Forfeiture Of Funds
• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Condonation
• Currency And Exchanges Act

Evergrand Trading (Pty) Ltd v South Africa Reserve Bank and Another (54068/2020)

Evergrand Trading (Pty) Ltd v South Africa Reserve Bank and Another (54068/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 739 (3 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

54068/2020

Judge

Ceylon I

High Court dismissed Evergrand’s late review of a Reserve Bank forfeiture, holding the 90-day statutory limit applied and condonation was not justified.

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Forfeiture Orders
• Condonation Of Delay
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Currency And Exchanges Act
• Judicial Review Time Limits

A B M Motors v Minister of Minerals and Energy and Others (12126/2016)

A B M Motors v Minister of Minerals and Energy and Others (12126/2016) [2018] ZAKZPHC 19; 2018 (5) SA 540 (KZP) (28 May 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

12126/2016

Judge

Ploos van Amstel

Review of a refusal to grant petroleum site and retail licences failed because the application for review was not instituted timeously under PAJA.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Service Of Process
• Petroleum Products Act
• Licensing Objectives
• Administrative-law

Modibedi v Health Professions Council South Africa and Others (17403/2014)

Modibedi v Health Professions Council South Africa and Others (17403/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 405 (23 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

17403/2014

Judge

A.M.L. Phatudi

The High Court held that a PAJA request for reasons does not stop the 180-day review period, and dismissed the review as out of time.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Request For Written Reasons
• Condonation
• Costs Award
• Administrative-law

Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association and Another v Harrison and Another (CCT 18/10)

Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association and Another v Harrison and Another (CCT 18/10) [2010] ZACC 19; 2011 (2) BCLR 121 (CC) ; 2011 (4) SA 42 (CC) (4 November 2010)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 18/10

Judges

Brand AJ, Ngcobo CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Mogoeng J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Yacoob J

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants failed to establish any contravention of title deed restrictions or zoning scheme regulations in the approval of the September 2007 building plans. The objections regarding the setback and height limitations were not supported by the facts, and the boundary wall on Blinkwater Road did not constitute a prohibited structure. The attempt to introduce a new ground of review based on section 47 of the zoning scheme regulations was time-barred under PAJA, as it related to a decision made in February 2005 and was only raised in May 2008. The Court fo…

Source excerpt

• Building Plan Approval
• Title Deed Restrictions
• Zoning Scheme Regulations
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Doctrine Of Precedent
• Judicial Review Time Limits