South Africa Case Law

Special Investigating Unit v Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality and Others; Special Investigating Unit v Mbashe Local Municipality and Others (EC/01/2020; EC/03/2020)

Special Investigating Unit v Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality and Others; Special Investigating Unit v Mbashe Local Municipality and Others (EC/01/2020; EC/03/2020) [2022] ZAST 27 (6 December 2022)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

EC/01/2020; EC/03/2020

Judge

JP Daffue

The Special Tribunal ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the SIU’s review claims and dismissed three special pleas by Kwane Capital with costs.

• Special Tribunal Jurisdiction
• Judicial Review
• Principle Of Legality
• Paja Review
• Stare Decisis
• Procurement Irregularities

Mokheseng v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (11458/2021)

Mokheseng v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (11458/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 919 (23 November 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

11458/2021

Judge

CM RIP

The court found that the decision of the Military Ombud amounts to administrative action as contemplated by PAJA. Therefore, the applicant was required to bring the review application under PAJA and not under the principle of legality. Furthermore, the court held that the application had become moot because the applicant's contract had expired by effluxion of time, and no effective relief could be granted. As a result, the application was dismissed on both grounds without the need to consider the merits or the question of delay.

Source excerpt

• Military Ombud Act Review
• Administrative Action
• Paja Review
• Mootness
• Delay In Review
• Termination Of Service

KeyHealth Medical Scheme v Ngoepe N.O and Others (A203/2021)

KeyHealth Medical Scheme v Ngoepe N.O and Others (A203/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 758 (10 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A203/2021

Judges

L Barit, DS Fourie, C Sardiwalla

The court held that KeyHealth Medical Scheme is prohibited by Regulation 10(6) of the Medical Schemes Act from using a member's Medical Savings Account to fund prescribed minimum benefits. Regulation 8 further obliges the scheme to pay PMBs in full from its risk pool, without co-payment or deductibles. KeyHealth's own Rule 17.5 reinforces this prohibition by stating that no limitations or exclusions apply to PMBs. The court found that KeyHealth's argument, based on the absence of an express prohibition, was flawed; the correct approach is to determine whether there is authorisation for such c…

Source excerpt

• Medical Schemes Act
• Prescribed Minimum Benefits
• Administrative Review
• Regulation Interpretation
• Risk Pool Funding
• Paja Review

Matlou v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others (70546/2019)

Matlou v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others (70546/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 310 (7 June 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

70546/2019

Judge

N Davis

The court held that the Commission's findings and recommendations are subject to legality review, not PAJA review, as they do not have direct external legal effect until implemented. The Commission failed to act fairly and within its terms of reference by not affording the applicant an opportunity to respond to allegations against him, breaching the principles of legality and fairness. The references to the applicant by name in the report and recommendations must be excised, but the general recommendations regarding HR audits remain intact. The applicant was only entitled to limited relief, a…

Source excerpt

• Legality Review
• Natural Justice
• Commission Of Inquiry
• Procedural Fairness
• Paja Review

Kuhudzai and Another v Minister of Home Affairs (11034/16)

Kuhudzai and Another v Minister of Home Affairs (11034/16) [2018] ZAWCHC 103 (24 August 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11034/16

Judge

Sher

The High Court set aside the Minister’s refusal to grant exemption-based permanent residence, finding that a blanket policy fettered discretion and was irrational.

• Immigration Act Exemption
• Ministerial Discretion
• Irrationality Review
• Policy Fettering Discretion
• Paja Review
• Costs Award Pro Bono

National Commissioner of Police Service and Another v Bobie NO and Another (C585/16)

National Commissioner of Police Service and Another v Bobie NO and Another (C585/16) [2018] ZALCCT 4; (2018) 39 ILJ 1140 (LC) (2 February 2018)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C585/16

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The application for review fails because the applicants did not properly identify the legal grounds for review under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA. Instead, they merely disagreed with the factual findings of the Appeals Authority and labelled them as irrational or unreasonable. The Labour Court emphasized that a review cannot succeed simply because the decision is considered incorrect; the grounds for review must be legally permissible and properly conceptualised. The applicants' submissions were akin to those made in an appeal, not a review, and failed to engage with the complexities of wheth…

Source excerpt

• Section 158 1 H Review
• Irrationality
• Unreasonableness
• Disciplinary Appeal
• Principle Of Legality
• Paja Review

Hamilton v Road Accident Fund (60581/14)

Hamilton v Road Accident Fund (60581/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 502 (19 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

60581/14

Judge

Legodi

The High Court dismissed a review of the RAF Appeal Tribunal’s refusal to classify the applicant’s injuries as serious under the AMA Guides and narrative test.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Serious Injury Assessment
• Judicial Review
• Narrative Test
• Paja Review
• Medical Evidence