South Africa Case Law

Dzenisiuk and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2021/476782)

Dzenisiuk and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2021/476782) [2024] ZAGPPHC 221 (19 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2021/476782

Judge

RJ Groenewald

The court found that the Respondents' decisions to reject the renewal of the First Applicant's Critical Skills Visa were based on material mistakes of fact and law, specifically regarding the legal status of the employer and the role of the First Applicant within the company. The Respondents failed to properly consider relevant documentary evidence and placed undue emphasis on irrelevant factors, such as the First Applicant's designation as managing director. The shifting of reasons for rejection and the failure to distinguish between a director and a shareholder demonstrated a lack of ration…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Immigration Act Review
• Critical Skills Visa
• Procedural Fairness
• Material Mistake Of Fact

Ling and Another v The Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs and Another (6928/2022)

Ling and Another v The Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs and Another (6928/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 177 (9 September 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6928/2022

Judge

J Cloete

The court found that the Director-General's refusal of the applicants' permanent residence applications was based solely on a material mistake of fact regarding the authenticity of a bank statement, which was later confirmed to be legitimate. The Director-General failed to provide adequate reasons, leaving the applicants unable to address the alleged fraud or pursue internal remedies. The respondents conceded that the decision was susceptible to review but opposed a substitution order. The court held that, given the lack of any other grounds for refusal, the absence of relevant expertise requ…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review Under Paja
• Adequacy Of Reasons
• Substitution Order
• Immigration Permits
• Material Mistake Of Fact

Sovereign Food Investments Limited v Country Bird Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (IMR176Nov16)

Sovereign Food Investments Limited v Country Bird Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (IMR176Nov16) [2017] ZACT 45 (13 September 2017)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

IMR176Nov16

Judges

Norman Manoim, Medi Mokuena, lmraan Valodia

The Tribunal set aside the Competition Commission’s conditional approval of Sovereign’s merger review and sent the matter back for reconsideration.

• Intermediate Merger Review
• Material Mistake Of Fact
• Jurisdiction Of Competition Commission
• Procedural Fairness
• Irrationality Under Paja
• Employment Conditions In Merger

Asla Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Human Settlement, Western Cape Government and Others (3159/2013)

Asla Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Human Settlement, Western Cape Government and Others (3159/2013) [2013] ZAWCHC 117 (20 June 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3159/2013

Judge

KM Savage

The court found that while the Department erred in requiring an Agrément certificate where NHBRC approval had been provided, this did not constitute a material mistake of law or fact sufficient to render the decision unlawful. The tender specifications were ambiguous, but the Department's Bid Evaluation Committee considered the substantive compliance of the bids. Given the technical nature of the tender requirements and the expertise required, the court exercised judicial deference to the administrative decision-maker. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the Department's decisions were…

Source excerpt

• Tender Review
• Material Mistake Of Law
• Material Mistake Of Fact
• Judicial Deference
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Procurement

Registrar of Pension Fund and Another v Kwazilu-Natal Retirement Fund and Another (3469/2012)

Registrar of Pension Fund and Another v Kwazilu-Natal Retirement Fund and Another (3469/2012) [2013] ZAKZDHC 12 (15 April 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

3469/2012

Judge

Balton

The court found that the Registrar's functionaries approved and registered amendments to the respondents' pension fund rules introducing target pensions without being aware of pending appeals and the underlying dispute regarding the nature and funding of target pensions. The respondents failed to disclose the existence of the appeals and misrepresented the purpose of the amendments as clarifying existing provisions, when in fact the rules did not previously provide for target pensions. This constituted a material mistake of fact and law, and relevant considerations were not taken into account…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Pension Fund Rule Amendment
• Material Mistake Of Fact
• Surplus Apportionment
• Fiduciary Duties Of Trustees

Chairpersons' Association v Minister of Arts and Culture and Others (25/2006)

Chairpersons' Association v Minister of Arts and Culture and Others (25/2006) [2007] ZASCA 44; [2007] SCA 44 (RSA); 2007 (5) SA 236 (SCA) ; [2007] 2 All SA 582 (SCA) (29 March 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

25/2006

Judges

Farlam, Howie, Brand, Jafta, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside the approval of the Louis Trichardt name change to Makhado, finding the decision was based on inadequate consultation.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Consultation Requirements
• Material Mistake Of Fact
• Judicial Review
• Geographical Names Change

Government Employees Pension Fund Provincial Government of Gauteng v Buitendag and Others (550/05)

Government Employees Pension Fund Provincial Government of Gauteng v Buitendag and Others (550/05) [2006] ZASCA 166; [2007] 1 All SA 445 (SCA); 2007 (4) SA 2 (SCA) (27 September 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

550/05

Judges

Harms, Zulman, Conradie, Cloete, Ponnan

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Board of the Government Employees Pension Fund has a discretion to allocate the death gratuity among dependants, but must do so on the basis of all material facts. The adult children of the deceased qualified as dependants under the Law and should have been considered by the Board. The Board's decision was made in ignorance of their existence, constituting a material mistake of fact and rendering the decision reviewable and liable to be set aside. The Provincial Government was obliged to provide complete information to the Fund regarding all dependant…

Source excerpt

• Government Employees Pension Law
• Dependants Definition
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Material Mistake Of Fact
• Allocation Of Gratuity

Pepcor Retirement Fund and Another v Financial Services Board and Another (198/2002)

Pepcor Retirement Fund and Another v Financial Services Board and Another (198/2002) [2003] ZASCA 56; [2003] 3 All SA 21 (SCA); 2003 (6) SA 38 (SCA) (30 May 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

198/2002

Judges

Vivier, Marais, Navsa, Cloete, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that both the Registrar of Pension Funds and the Financial Services Board have locus standi to seek judicial review of certificates and transfers issued under section 14(1) of the Pension Funds Act, as their functions are performed in the public interest and are subject to statutory oversight. The Registrar is specifically empowered to compel compliance with the Act and to seek repayment of unlawfully transferred funds, while the Financial Services Board may supervise and seek review but cannot itself recover such funds. The court further recognised that a mat…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Material Mistake Of Fact
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Pension Fund Regulation
• Condictio
• Ultra Vires