South Africa Case Law

Road Accident Fund v Mudawo and Others (011795/2022)

Road Accident Fund v Mudawo and Others (011795/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 655 (9 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

011795/2022

Judges

N Davis, B F Mnyovu, A Kok

The court found that the Road Accident Fund Act does not contain any express limitation excluding illegal foreigners from its operation. The attempt by the Minister of Transport and the Road Accident Fund to exclude illegal foreigners through subordinate regulation was unlawful, as subordinate legislation cannot amend the scope of a statute. The Constitutional Court's decision in Chakanyuka was distinguishable, as the Legal Practice Act expressly limits admission to citizens and permanent residents, whereas the RAF Act does not. The Supreme Court of Appeal has held that the RAF Act should be…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Leave To Appeal
• Statutory Interpretation
• Ministerial Powers
• Immigration Status
• Costs Award

Du Plessis N.O and Another v Minister of Finance and Others (18568/22)

Du Plessis N.O and Another v Minister of Finance and Others (18568/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 581 (27 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

18568/22

Judge

MPD Chabedi

The court found that the National Treasury did not issue any directive to the Department of Home Affairs to pay the claimed amount to the applicants. The correspondence relied upon by the applicants contained recommendations, not binding instructions. The PFMA and related regulations do not empower the National Treasury to compel other state organs to pay disputed claims or enforce recommendations. The applicants failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought, as the alleged directive did not exist and the National Treasury's statutory powers do not extend to enforcing payment in thes…

Source excerpt

• Public Finance Management Act
• Mandamus
• Ministerial Powers
• Final Interdict
• Contractual Dispute Resolution

South African Agricultural Machinery Association and Another v Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa and Others (20/44414)

South African Agricultural Machinery Association and Another v Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa and Others (20/44414) [2024] ZAGPJHC 824 (30 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20/44414

Judge

D M Fine

The court found that, on a proper interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), there exists a primary implied power for the Minister to regulate the funding of MIOSA, as adequate funding is necessary for MIOSA to fulfil its statutory functions and achieve the objectives of the CPA. The collateral challenge to the legality of the funding provisions in the Code was dismissed. However, the court held that MIOSA's creation and application of its own categories and formula for calculating contributions were not authorised by the Code and thus unlawful. The Code prescribes specific criteria…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires
• Industry Code Regulation
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Consumer Protection Act
• Ministerial Powers
• Unlawful Administrative Action

e.tv (Pty) Limited v Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies and Others; Media Monitoring Africa and Another v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others (89/22;CCT 92/22)

e.tv (Pty) Limited v Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies and Others; Media Monitoring Africa and Another v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others (89/22;CCT 92/22) [2022] ZACC 22; 2022 (9) BCLR 1055 (CC); 2023 (3) SA 1 (CC) (28 June 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 89/22; CCT 92/22

Judges

Kollapen, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Mlambo, Theron, Tshiqi, Unterhalter

The Constitutional Court held that the Minister's determination of the analogue switch-off date and the STB registration deadline was unlawful and irrational. The Minister exercised executive power, but the process leading to the decision failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for affected households to register for STBs. The Minister did not properly consult with all relevant parties, and the process was tainted by procedural irrationality. The Court found that the Minister lacked reliable information on the number of households requiring STBs and failed to mitigate the adverse im…

Source excerpt

• Procedural Rationality
• Ministerial Powers
• Digital Migration Policy
• Consultation Requirements
• Legality Review
• Broadcasting Regulation

Sedibeng Iron Ore (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (19831/2020)

Sedibeng Iron Ore (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (19831/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 798 (19 November 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19831/2020

Judge

Le Roux AJ

The High Court set aside the Minister’s grant of a manganese prospecting right, finding insufficient consideration of Sedibeng’s existing mining and appeal rights.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act
• Ministerial Powers
• Existing Rights
• Procedural Fairness
• Environmental Authorisation

#Unitebehind v Minister of Transport and Others (2058/2020)

#Unitebehind v Minister of Transport and Others (2058/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 85; [2020] 4 All SA 593 (WCC) (25 August 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2058/2020

Judge

Erasmus

The court reviewed PRASA leadership decisions, holding that the Minister unlawfully failed to appoint a Board of Control and unlawfully appointed an Administrator and acting GCEO.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Entity Governance
• Board Appointment
• Ministerial Powers
• Accounting Authority
• Judicial Review

Minister of Mineral Resources v Stern and Others; Treasure the Karoo Action Group and Another v Department of Mineral Resources and Others (1369/2017; 790/2018)

Minister of Mineral Resources v Stern and Others; Treasure the Karoo Action Group and Another v Department of Mineral Resources and Others (1369/2017; 790/2018) [2019] ZASCA 99; [2019] 3 All SA 684 (SCA) (4 July 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1369/2017; 790/2018

Judges

Cachalia, Mbha, Mathopo, Van der Merwe, Davis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Minister of Mineral Resources was not empowered to make the Petroleum Regulations relating to environmental matters, as those powers had been transferred to the Minister of Environmental Affairs under the One Environmental System and NEMA. The repeal of section 107(1)(a) of the MPRDA divested the Minister of Mineral Resources of the power to regulate environmental impacts of petroleum exploration and production. The majority of the Petroleum Regulations were ultra vires, and severance of invalid provisions was impractical and would result in incoheren…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires Regulations
• Environmental Authorisation
• One Environmental System
• Judicial Review
• Public Participation
• Ministerial Powers

Public Servants Association of South Africa obo Nkukwana and Others v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (J1434/2017)

Public Servants Association of South Africa obo Nkukwana and Others v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (J1434/2017) [2019] ZALCJHB 37 (5 March 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1434/2017

Judge

C Beckenstrater

The Labour Court held that a ministerial letter validly countermanded an earlier employment decision on post titles and remuneration. The application was dismissed.

• Public Service Act
• Occupation Specific Dispensation
• Translation Of Posts
• Remuneration Disputes
• Ministerial Powers
• Labour-law

Poya v Railway Safety Regulator and Others (J 3521/18)

Poya v Railway Safety Regulator and Others (J 3521/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 354 (6 November 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 3521/18

Judge

Prinsloo

The Labour Court found that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the lawfulness of disciplinary proceedings arising from employment relationships, as the applicant's claim is premised on his constitutional rights to fair labour practices and fair administrative action. The applicant is employed by the Railway Safety Regulator (RSR), not the Minister of Transport, and his contract of employment incorporates the RSR's disciplinary code, which governs the disciplinary process. Section 9(4) of the National Railway Safety Regulator Act empowers the Minister to discharge the CEO for misconduct but doe…

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Interdict Requirements
• Contract Of Employment
• Ministerial Powers

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform v Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd and Others, Mathibane and Others v Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd and Others (370/2017)

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform v Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd and Others, Mathibane and Others v Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd and Others (370/2017) [2017] ZASCA 163; [2018] 1 All SA 390 (SCA); 2019 (1) SA 154 (SCA) (29 November 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

370/2017

Judges

Leach, Saldulker, Swain, Lamont, Rogers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court erred in compelling the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform to provide alternative grazing land, as the relevant statutory powers are permissive and not obligatory. The Minister's appeal was upheld, and the costs order against him was set aside, with each party to bear its own costs in line with the Biowatch principle. Normandien Farms was found to have standing to seek removal of livestock under the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, and the removal of livestock due to overgrazing does not constitute an eviction u…

Source excerpt

• Labour Tenants
• Overgrazing
• Condonation And Reinstatement
• Contempt Of Court
• Costs Awards
• Ministerial Powers