South Africa Case Law

Netcare Hospitals (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D 415/21)

Netcare Hospitals (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D 415/21) [2023] ZALCD 4; [2023] 8 BLLR 827 (LC) (4 April 2023)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D 415/21

Judge

Whitcher

Labour Court review of a CCMA wage arbitration award set aside an ATB increase finding after the commissioner misstated the industry average benchmark.

• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Wage Dispute
• Material Error Of Fact
• Interest Arbitration
• Remittal To Ccma
• Review-of-arbitration-award

Alberts and Others v Chairperson of Council for Medical Schemes (61223/2007)

Alberts and Others v Chairperson of Council for Medical Schemes (61223/2007) [2020] ZAGPPHC 722 (3 November 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61223/2007

Judge

Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

The court found that the Council followed the statutory procedure set out in section 46 of the Medical Schemes Act. The trustees were furnished with full details of the allegations and given an extended opportunity to respond. The Council considered all relevant documents and representations before making its decision. The applicants' contentions regarding procedural unfairness and material errors of fact were not supported by the evidence, as the Council's reasons demonstrated that all facts and responses were duly considered. The argument that the decision was irrational was rejected, as th…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Material Error Of Fact
• Irrationality
• Removal Of Trustees

Lourens v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (76385/2016)

Lourens v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (76385/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 494 (29 June 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

76385/2016

Judge

Senyatsi

The court found that the Third Respondent acted irrationally by failing to properly consider the medical evidence, including the narrative test and expert reports from the occupational therapist and industrial psychologist. The tribunal did not exercise its investigative powers as required by the regulations and ignored relevant information solely because certain experts were not medical practitioners. This amounted to a material error of fact and irrational administrative action, rendering the decision reviewable under PAJA. The court held that the tribunal's decision was not justifiable or…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Serious Injury Assessment
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Material Error Of Fact
• Rationality Review

SANTS Private Higher Education Institution v The Chairperson of the Higher Education Quality Committee of the Council on Higher Education (51588/2015)

SANTS Private Higher Education Institution v The Chairperson of the Higher Education Quality Committee of the Council on Higher Education (51588/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 791 (20 October 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

51588/2015

Judge

D S Fourie

The court found that the decision of the Higher Education Quality Committee to withdraw accreditation of SANTS' B.Ed Programmes was made in ignorance of material facts, specifically the true recommendation of Dr Govender, which was incorrectly recorded and not properly considered by the committee. The committee minutes contained mistakes that were passed on to the HEQC, resulting in a decision based on erroneous information. The doctrine of legality and the right to just administrative action require that such decisions be made on the basis of true facts. Consequently, the decision was unlawf…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Material Error Of Fact
• Accreditation Of Educational Programmes
• Just And Equitable Remedy

Dumani v Nair and Another (144/2012)

Dumani v Nair and Another (144/2012) [2012] ZASCA 196; 2013 (2) SA 274 (SCA); [2013] 2 All SA 125 (SCA) (30 November 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

144/2012

Judges

MPATI, CLOETE, HEHER, CACHALIA, THERON

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a magistrate’s review of misconduct convictions, holding that alleged factual misdirection did not justify review under PAJA.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Material Error Of Fact
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Unreasonableness
• Arbitrariness

Palazzolo v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (4731/2010)

Palazzolo v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (4731/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 422 (14 June 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4731/2010

Judges

P B Fourie, N J Yekiso

The court held that the Minister, before issuing a notification under section 5(1)(a) of the Extradition Act, is required to form at least a prima facie view that the request shows the person is accused or convicted of an extraditable offence, in accordance with the double criminality rule. The Ministers failed to consider whether the Italian offence had a counterpart in South African law and relied on incorrect information regarding the applicant's alleged convictions. These failures rendered the decisions unlawful administrative actions under PAJA and violated the principle of legality. The…

Source excerpt

• Extradition
• Double Criminality
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Principle Of Legality
• Material Error Of Fact