South Africa Case Law

Blind SA v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 300/24)

Blind SA v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 300/24) [2025] ZACC 9; 2025 (7) BCLR 757 (CC) (7 May 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 300/24

Judges

Madlanga ADCJ, Kollapen J, Mathopo J, Mhlantla J, Rogers J, Seegobin AJ, Theron J, Tolmay AJ, Tshiqi J

The Constitutional Court found that the expiry of the suspension period for the declaration of invalidity in the Copyright Act created an immediate rights vacuum for persons with visual and print disabilities, leaving them without legal protection to access copyrighted materials in accessible formats. The Court held that it retained jurisdiction to grant supplementary just and equitable relief under section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution, even after the lapse of the suspension period, to prevent ongoing constitutional violations. The Court determined that reading in the current version of clau…

Source excerpt

• Copyright Exception For Disabilities
• Reading In Of Legislation
• Constitutional Invalidity Remedy
• Marrakesh Vip Treaty Alignment
• Just And Equitable Relief

Ekapa Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sol Plaatje Local Municipality and Others (CCT 119/23)

Ekapa Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sol Plaatje Local Municipality and Others (CCT 119/23) [2025] ZACC 1; 2025 (5) BCLR 505 (CC) (24 March 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 119/23

Judges

Zondo, Maya, Bilchitz, Gamble, Madlanga, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court found that the High Court erred by limiting the retrospective effect of its order of invalidity to prospective operation only, thereby failing to properly balance the interests of the applicants and the municipality. The High Court focused solely on the municipality's fiscal interests and did not consider the substantial prejudice to Ekapa, which had paid rates at a lower ratio and faced unlawful charges. The evidence did not support the municipality's claims of disruptive financial consequences, and the delay in challenging the rates was not as extensive as the High…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Property Rates Act
• Principle Of Legality
• Just And Equitable Relief
• Unlawful Differentiation
• Retrospective Orders
• Local Government Finance

Petersen and Others v SASSA (1106/2023; 1139/2023; 1053/2023)

Petersen and Others v SASSA (1106/2023; 1139/2023; 1053/2023) [2024] ZASCA 173; 2025 (3) SA 153 (SCA) (12 December 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1106/2023; 1139/2023; 1053/2023

Judges

Makgoka, Mbatha, Weiner, Kgoele, Unterhalter

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that SASSA's decision to procure and pay for close protection services for officials of the Department of Social Development and their children was ultra vires the SASSA Act and therefore unlawful. The delay in bringing the review was explained by the sequence of events following the Auditor General's findings and subsequent attempts to recover the expenditure, and was condoned as the interests of justice required the matter to be heard. The claim for repayment was not extinguished by prescription, as the relief sought was a public law remedy and not a debt un…

Source excerpt

• Self Review
• Legality Review
• Undue Delay
• Prescription Act
• Just And Equitable Relief
• Ultra Vires

Miya NO v Miya and Another (AR467/2022)

Miya NO v Miya and Another (AR467/2022) [2024] ZAKZPHC 88 (11 October 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR467/2022

Judges

Marion AJ, Seegobin J

Appeal in an eviction dispute dismissed: although the estate representative had standing and the respondent was an unlawful occupier, eviction was not just and equitable.

• Eviction
• Ubuntu Principle
• Intestate Succession
• Unlawful Occupation
• Locus Standi
• Just And Equitable Relief

African Exploration Mining and Finance Corporation (SOC) Limited v LME Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd (060853/2023)

African Exploration Mining and Finance Corporation (SOC) Limited v LME Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd (060853/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 905 (9 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

060853/2023

Judge

Retief

The Court found that the applicant's delay in bringing the self-review application was unreasonable and inadequately explained, as the applicant failed to provide any substantive justification for not acting sooner. Nevertheless, the Court exercised its discretion to overlook the delay, given the public interest in preventing harm to the public purse and the fact that the rental agreement was concluded for an amount higher than the Board-approved contract price. The Court determined that the rental agreement was invalid due to lack of proper Board approval and breach of procurement conditions…

Source excerpt

• Self Review
• Delay In Legality Review
• Public Procurement
• Just And Equitable Relief
• Contractual Invalidity

Zuma and Another v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others (077748/2024)

Zuma and Another v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others (077748/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 903 (30 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

077748/2024

Judge

S Yacoob

The court found that the applicants failed to establish sufficient urgency to warrant hearing the matter on the urgent roll. While the applicants alleged ongoing constitutional violations by the SABC, the court held that the urgency was not adequately substantiated, particularly given the applicants' own indication that the matter was of such importance as to merit a special allocation to a Full Court. The court also noted procedural shortcomings, including the absence of a Rule 16A notice, which is necessary for constitutional matters potentially affecting third parties. The SABC's delays an…

Source excerpt

• Media Freedom
• Public Broadcasting Obligations
• Urgent Interdict
• Review Under Paja
• Rule 16a Notice
• Just And Equitable Relief

My Vote Counts NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (10607/24)

My Vote Counts NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (10607/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 205 (16 August 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10607/24

Judge

DM Thulare

The court found that the Democratic Alliance, while having an interest as a party subject to the donation limits and disclosure thresholds, failed to demonstrate that its rights would be adversely affected by the order sought. The DA did not raise substantially new contentions that could assist the court, and its intervention was not justified in the interests of justice. The respondents abided by the court's decision, and the matter was unopposed. The legislative gap created by the Electoral Matters Amendment Act, 2024, required temporary relief to ensure continued transparency and complianc…

Source excerpt

• Party Intervention
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Electoral Law Gap
• Just And Equitable Relief

Special Investigating Unit v Nkhane Projects and Supply (Pty) Ltd and Another (GP 04/2023)

Special Investigating Unit v Nkhane Projects and Supply (Pty) Ltd and Another (GP 04/2023) [2024] ZAST 9 (5 August 2024)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP 04/2023

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Tribunal found that the Gauteng Department of Health awarded contracts to Nkhane Projects and Supply (Pty) Ltd in clear violation of procurement prescripts, including the absence of a competitive bidding process, lack of proper deviation approval, and officials acting beyond their delegated authority. These uncontested irregularities rendered the contracts unlawful and invalid. The SIU's delay in bringing the application was condoned due to the seriousness of the irregularities and the interests of justice. The innocence of Nkhane as a tenderer was considered only in determining consequen…

Source excerpt

• Legality Review
• Public Procurement Irregularities
• Just And Equitable Relief
• Condonation For Delay
• No Profit No Loss Principle

SA Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Ltd and Another v Motsoeneng and Others (A2022/046784)

SA Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Ltd and Another v Motsoeneng and Others (A2022/046784) [2024] ZAGPJHC 688; [2024] 4 All SA 238 (GJ); 2025 (2) SA 571 (GJ) (30 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2022/046784

Judges

Mudau, Malindi, Wilson

The majority held that a debt to the state arising from an unlawful administrative act only falls due when the act is set aside by a court. Until then, the act stands as a fact and prevents the debt from becoming claimable. The Special Tribunal erred in finding that the repayment claim prescribed when the SABC acquired knowledge of the unlawfulness of the scheme. The correct position, supported by authority, is that prescription only begins to run from the date the administrative act is set aside. However, the court found that ordering repayment by the respondents would not be just and equita…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Self Review
• Just And Equitable Relief
• Personal Liability Of State Officials

Special Investigating Unit v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (GP08/2019)

Special Investigating Unit v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (GP08/2019) [2024] ZAST 7 (29 July 2024)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP08/2019

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Tribunal found that the procurement processes for tenders DCSSF01 and DCSSF02 were fundamentally irregular, contravening statutory and regulatory requirements, including fiscal dumping and non-compliance with National Treasury Regulations and the PFMA. The appointment of service providers was tainted by single sourcing without proper approval, misrepresentation, and excessive payments. The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction to adjudicate legality reviews and the SIU's locus standi. The opposing respondents' points in limine were dismissed as lacking merit. The Tribunal held that the decl…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Irregularities
• Fiscal Dumping
• Just And Equitable Relief
• Setting Aside Tender Awards
• Locus Standi
• Declaration Of Invalidity