Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Administrative Law [2023] ZASCA 78

Steenhuisen and Another v Van Rooyen and Others (611/2021)

Steenhuisen and Another v Van Rooyen and Others (611/2021) [2023] ZASCA 78 (29 May 2023)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
611/2021
Judges
Dambuza, Zondi, Plasket, Gorven, Salie

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Public Protector's investigation and decision were not rationally related to the parliamentary question posed. The question specifically referred to the period 'since taking office', and both the Public Protector and Mr Van Rooyen initially interpreted it as such. However, the Public Protector's investigation and conclusion disregarded her own interpretation and relied on evidence and media reports relating to a period not covered by the question. The complaint was therefore not related to the actual question, and the Public Protector applied the wro…

Source excerpt

  • Executive Ethics Code
  • Wilful Misleading Of Parliament
  • Review Of Public Protector Decision
  • Parliamentary Accountability
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2011] ZAECGHC 33

Centre for Social Accountability v Secretary of Parliament and Others (298/2010)

Centre for Social Accountability v Secretary of Parliament and Others (298/2010) [2011] ZAECGHC 33; 2011 (5) SA 279 (ECG); [2011] 4 All SA 181 (ECG) (28 July 2011)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
298/2010
Judge
Alkema

The court held that the applicant had locus standi under section 78(2) of PAIA, having exhausted all internal appeal procedures. The refusal to disclose the Schedules was not justified under section 34(1), as the information related to official conduct of members of Parliament and did not fall within the protected sphere of personal privacy. Even if section 34(1) applied, the public interest override in section 46 mandated disclosure because the records would reveal evidence of substantial contravention of the law in the administration of parliamentary travel vouchers, and the public interest…

Source excerpt

  • Promotion Of Access To Information Act
  • Public Interest Override
  • Right To Privacy
  • Parliamentary Accountability
  • Civil Procedure
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.