South Africa Case Law

Director General: Department of Employment and Labour and Another v Green Secure Group (P76/2018)

Director General: Department of Employment and Labour and Another v Green Secure Group (P76/2018) [2019] ZALCPE 16; (2020) 41 ILJ 189 (LC) (23 August 2019)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

P76/2018

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court held it retained jurisdiction over a compliance-order application that was pending when section 77A(a) of the BCEA was repealed.

• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Retrospective Application Of Statutes
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Pending Applications
• Compliance Orders
• Labour-court-jurisdiction

Mabelane v Dykema and Another (1054/2017)

Mabelane v Dykema and Another (1054/2017) [2018] ZASCA 174; [2019] 1 All SA 316 (SCA) (3 December 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1054/2017

Judges

Wallis, Swain, Dambuza, Schippers, Mothle

The majority held that an application is only 'pending' if the tribunal or authority still has the power to determine it. After the expiry of the suspension of constitutional invalidity on 17 June 2012, the development tribunal lost its authority to decide applications under the Development Facilitation Act. Therefore, any application not disposed of before that date ceased to be pending and could not be revived by s 60(2)(a) of SPLUMA. The purported approval of the respondent's application by the tribunal after the expiry date was invalid. The municipality was not obliged to process the resp…

Source excerpt

• Development Facilitation Act
• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management Act
• Pending Applications
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Just Administrative Action

Sechaba v Kotze and Others (869/2006)

Sechaba v Kotze and Others (869/2006) [2007] ZANCHC 4; [2007] 4 All SA 811 (NC) (29 June 2007)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

869/2006

Judges

Lacock, Olivier

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to immediate access to the farm or to commence prospecting activities because it failed to consult with the land owner after the granting of the prospecting right, as required by section 5(4)(c) of the MPRDA. The main application was therefore premature and could not succeed. The court further found that the second prospecting right granted to the applicant was invalid, as it was issued by the Regional Manager without proper authority and contained terms and conditions not determined by the DDG or Minister. The respondents' pending applicatio…

Source excerpt

• Prospecting Rights
• Delegation Of Authority
• Pending Applications
• Consultation With Land Owner
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies

Unitrans Passenger (Pty) Ltd t/a Greyhound Coach Lines v Chairman of the National Transport Commission and Others, Transnet Ltd (autonet Division) v Chairman of the National Transport Commission and Others (403/97,415/97)

Unitrans Passenger (Pty) Ltd t/a Greyhound Coach Lines v Chairman of the National Transport Commission and Others, Transnet Ltd (autonet Division) v Chairman of the National Transport Commission and Others (403/97,415/97) [1999] ZASCA 40; [1999] 3 All SA 365 (A) (28 May 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

403/97,415/97

Judges

Hefer, Howie, Marais, Olivier, Madlanga

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an amending proclamation did not end pending road carrier permit applications lodged before 1 May 1996. The NTC could still decide Interkaap’s application.

• Road Transportation Permits
• Retrospective Application Of Statutes
• Pending Applications
• Jurisdiction Of Administrative Bodies
• Retrospective-statutes
• Pending-applications