South Africa Case Law

Bela-Bela Municipality and Others v Bela-Bela VTS (Pty) Ltd and Another (Leave to Appeal) (10379/2023)

Bela-Bela Municipality and Others v Bela-Bela VTS (Pty) Ltd and Another (Leave to Appeal) (10379/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 144 (11 October 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

10379/2023

Judge

N. Gaisa

The High Court granted leave to appeal against its review order concerning Bela-Bela Municipality’s refusal to support a vehicle testing station application.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Powers And Functions
• Cooperative Governance
• Procedural Fairness
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Division Of Powers

Madiro v Madibeng Local Municipality and Others (1760/2022)

Madiro v Madibeng Local Municipality and Others (1760/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1838; [2024] 1 All SA 225 (GP) (19 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

1760/2022

Judge

Vermeulen AJ

The court found that both Madibeng and Bojanala Municipalities, as well as their respective managers, failed to comply with previous interdict and contempt orders regarding the ongoing sewage spillage on the applicant's property. The applications to rescind or set aside the orders were dismissed: the Madibeng Respondents had notice and elected not to participate, failing to meet the requirements of Rule 42(1)(a) or common law rescission. The Bojanala Respondents' collateral challenge was rejected due to unreasonable delay and insufficient evidence that the interdict was a nullity; the Distric…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Powers And Functions
• Contempt Of Court
• Structured Interdict
• Environmental Protection
• Constitutional Duties Of Organs Of State
• Local Government Service Delivery

Moqhaka Taxi Association v Moqhaka Municipality and Others (3706/2012)

Moqhaka Taxi Association v Moqhaka Municipality and Others (3706/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 24 (7 March 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3706/2012

Judge

A. Kruger

The court found that the relief sought by the applicant was too vague and broadly framed to be enforceable. The applicant failed to specify the legal basis for prohibiting taxi operations at the identified locations and did not cite the alleged transgressors as respondents. The court held that it would be inappropriate to issue general directions to the respondents to enforce the law, as this would violate the separation of powers and create practical difficulties in enforcement. The applicant had alternative remedies available, such as reporting transgressors to the Registrar, seeking interd…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Powers And Functions
• Separation Of Powers
• Enforcement Of Bylaws
• Judicial Review
• Vagueness Of Relief