South Africa Case Law

Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT 184/23)

Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT 184/23) [2025] ZACC 8; 2025 (7) BCLR 779 (CC); 2025 (4) SA 323 (CC) (6 May 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 184/23

Judges

Maya CJ, Madlanga ADCJ, Majiedt J, Mhlantla J, Seegobin AJ, Theron J, Tolmay AJ, Tshiqi J

Section 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act 88 of 1995 is unconstitutional because it causes South African citizens to lose their citizenship automatically and without notice or legitimate government purpose when they voluntarily acquire citizenship in another country. This automatic loss constitutes a deprivation of citizenship in violation of section 20 of the Constitution, regardless of whether it results in statelessness. The provision is arbitrary, irrational, and not justified under section 36 of the Constitution. Ministerial discretion under section 6(2) does not cure the defe…

Source excerpt

• Citizenship Rights
• Automatic Loss Of Citizenship
• Dual Citizenship
• Ministerial Discretion
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Lu v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2023-034681)

Lu v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2023-034681) [2025] ZAGPPHC 181 (26 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-034681

Judge

Mlambo

The court found that the Minister's decision to refuse to uplift the applicant's status as a prohibited person was administrative action reviewable under PAJA. The Minister failed to consider relevant factors, including the applicant's innocence, his long-standing lawful residence, family circumstances, and the risk to his minor child's status. The respondents did not provide sufficient evidence of fraud or conduct a proper investigation. The Minister's reasons merely mirrored those of the Director-General and did not demonstrate meaningful consideration of the applicant's representations. Th…

Source excerpt

• Immigration Act Section 29
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review
• Good Cause Requirement
• Childs Best Interests
• Ministerial Discretion

Jaments (Pty) Ltd v Northern Coal (Pty) Ltd (2024-061972)

Jaments (Pty) Ltd v Northern Coal (Pty) Ltd (2024-061972) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1075 (29 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-061972

Judge

de Vos

Leave to appeal was dismissed after the court found no reasonable prospect of success against setting aside the Minister’s suspension of a mining consent.

• Mining Rights Variation
• Ministerial Discretion
• First In Time Principle
• Prospecting Rights
• Judicial Review
• Costs Award

Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy v Becker and Others (1199/23)

Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy v Becker and Others (1199/23) [2024] ZASCA 106; [2024] 9 BLLR 893 (SCA) (28 June 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1199/23

Judges

Molemela, Schippers, Meyer, Tlaletsi, Koen

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Minister's decision to discharge Mr Becker as director of the National Nuclear Regulator Board was unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid. The Minister wrongly conflated the Board's statutory duty to ensure nuclear safety with advocacy for nuclear activities and erroneously believed that opposition to nuclear activities constituted misconduct. The Minister's reasoning was arbitrary and based on incorrect facts, including unfounded allegations of conflict of interest and anticipated future misconduct. The process was procedurally unfair, as the Minis…

Source excerpt

• National Nuclear Regulator Act
• Principle Of Legality
• Review Under Paja
• Ministerial Discretion
• Conflict Of Interest
• Procedural Fairness

George Moerasrivier Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Director of Animal Health , Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Another (715/2023)

George Moerasrivier Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Director of Animal Health , Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Another (715/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 175 (21 June 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

715/2023

Judge

J Cloete

The court held that the Director's decision to award nil compensation was not authorised by section 19(2) read with section 2(2) of the Animal Diseases Act. The statutory scheme requires compensation to be determined based on the fair market value of healthy animals, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bluelilliesbush. The Director was bound to have due regard to the Minister's instruction, which required consultation and settlement at an acceptable compensation value. The Director's interpretation, which allowed for nil compensation, was inconsistent with the statutory purpose and…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Statutory Interpretation
• Compensation For Destroyed Animals
• Ministerial Discretion
• Judicial Review

Schultz v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (76/2023)

Schultz v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (76/2023) [2024] ZASCA 77; 2024 (2) SACR 294 (SCA) (23 May 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

76/2023

Judges

Mothle, Hughes, Mabindla-Boqwana, Seegobin, Keightley

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the power to make an extradition request to a foreign State, specifically the United States, vests exclusively in the Minister of Justice as a member of the national executive. This conclusion is supported by the Constitution, the Extradition Act, and customary international law. The Court reasoned that extradition requests are acts of sovereignty between States and inherently implicate foreign relations, which are the preserve of the executive. The absence of express provisions in the Extradition Act regarding outgoing requests does not negate the Minist…

Source excerpt

• Extradition Act
• Executive Powers
• Separation Of Powers
• Customary International Law
• Ministerial Discretion
• Prosecutorial Independence

South African Petroleum Industry Association v Fuel Retailers' Association (28818/2014)

South African Petroleum Industry Association v Fuel Retailers' Association (28818/2014) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1301 (13 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28818/2014

Judge

Ingrid Opperman

The High Court dismissed SAPIA’s application for leave to appeal, holding that the challenge targeted the judgment’s reasoning rather than the operative order.

• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Ministerial Discretion
• Petroleum Regulation
• Remedial Orders
• Vertical Integration
• Procedural Fairness

Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (67/2022)

Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (67/2022) [2023] ZASCA 97; 2023 (6) SA 156 (SCA) (13 June 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

67/2022

Judges

Zondi, Schippers, Matojane, Kathree-Setiloane, Unterhalter

Section 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act 88 of 1995 is irrational and constitutionally invalid. The provision causes automatic loss of citizenship without notice or legitimate government purpose, and the ministerial discretion under section 6(2) does not cure this irrationality. The Act permits dual citizenship elsewhere and provides for voluntary renunciation, rendering section 6(1)(a) arbitrary and redundant. The loss of citizenship under this section unjustifiably limits the right to citizenship and related constitutional rights, such as political participation, freedom of move…

Source excerpt

• Citizenship
• Automatic Loss Of Citizenship
• Irrationality Review
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Ministerial Discretion

Bargaining Council for the Building Industry (Cape of Good Hope) v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (C100/2023)

Bargaining Council for the Building Industry (Cape of Good Hope) v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (C100/2023) [2023] ZALCCT 24; [2023] 8 BLLR 755 (LC); (2023) 44 ILJ 1695 (LC) (26 May 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C100/2023

Judge

Lagrange

The court found that the minister's decision was fundamentally flawed and unlawful because he purported to determine sufficient representativeness himself, contrary to the amended LRA which vests that power in the Registrar. The minister's reasoning was based on an error of law and failed to consider whether not extending the agreement would undermine collective bargaining, a mandatory consideration under section 32(5)(b). The minister also neglected to address the exemption process for non-parties and did not provide adequate reasons for rejecting the bargaining council's motivation. These f…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Collective Agreements
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Ministerial Discretion
• Sufficient Representativeness
• Collective Bargaining
• Judicial Review

Tonise and Others v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others (1274/2022)

Tonise and Others v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others (1274/2022) [2023] ZAECMKHC 68 (24 May 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1274/2022

Judge

N G Beshe

The court found that the Minister's decision to terminate the applicants' appointments and dissolve the Amatola Water Board was not an executive action but constituted administrative action subject to the requirements of procedural fairness under PAJA. The Minister failed to provide evidence that he properly considered the applicants' submissions or engaged meaningfully with the allegations against them. The Rule 53 record did not contain the applicants' written submissions, and there was no substantiated link between the alleged dysfunctionality and any negative impact on water services. The…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Legality Review
• Board Dissolution
• Ministerial Discretion
• Procedural Fairness