South Africa Case Law

Dyer Eiland Visserye (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Another (11914/17)

Dyer Eiland Visserye (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Another (11914/17) [2018] ZAWCHC 162 (13 November 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11914/17

Judge

DM Thulare

The court found that the applicant was not properly informed of the factual basis for the alleged breach prior to the revocation of its fishing rights. The section 28 notice failed to set out the facts supporting the contravention, and the applicant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the specific allegations before the decision was made. The second respondent did not engage with the applicant's alternative facts, and the report to the Minister on appeal did not adequately present both sides of the dispute or provide reasons for preferring the Department's case. The Minister's deci…

Source excerpt

• Marine Living Resources Act
• Revocation Of Fishing Rights
• Permit Conditions
• Procedural Fairness
• Appeal Procedure

Gees v Provincial Minister of Cultural affairs and Sport, Western Cape and Others (974/2015)

Gees v Provincial Minister of Cultural affairs and Sport, Western Cape and Others (974/2015) [2016] ZASCA 136; 2017 (1) SA 1 (SCA) (29 September 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

974/2015

Judges

Maya, Bosielo, Seriti, Fourie, Dlodlo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that s 48(2) of the National Heritage Resources Act confers a broad discretion on heritage authorities to impose conditions in permits, not limited to formally protected heritage areas. The conditions imposed on the demolition permit for Erf 1444 were aimed at conserving the heritage character of the surrounding area, which is in the process of being formally protected. The court found that the conditions were lawful, reasonable, and equitable, and did not amount to arbitrary deprivation of property under s 25(1) of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed,…

Source excerpt

• National Heritage Resources Act
• Permit Conditions
• Ultra Vires
• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property
• Heritage Conservation
• Constitutional Property Rights

New Foodcorp Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others (82/1)

New Foodcorp Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others (82/1) [2012] ZASCA 30; [2012] 2 All SA 518 (SCA); 2012 (7) BCLR 717 (SCA); 2013 (1) SA 406 (SCA) (28 March 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

82/11

Judges

NAVSA, VAN HEERDEN, MHLANTLA, LEACH, WALLIS

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of the Transfer Policy are not ultra vires the Minister's powers under the Marine Living Resources Act. The policy is consistent with the Act's objectives, particularly the constitutional and statutory imperative of transformation in the fishing industry. The Minister is entitled to scrutinize share transactions that result in a change of control or a reduction in transformation credentials, as fishing rights and permits are subject to ongoing compliance with transformation requirements. The policy provides sufficient guidance for t…

Source excerpt

• Ministerial Discretion
• Ultra Vires
• Transformation Policy
• Marine Living Resources Act
• Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment
• Permit Conditions

Natal Zoological Gardens (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and Others (5945/09)

Natal Zoological Gardens (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and Others (5945/09) [2009] ZAKZPHC 38 (13 August 2009)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

5945/09

Judge

Swain

High Court costs ruling after an interim interdict became redundant on appeal; the court ordered each party to pay its own costs.

• Interim Interdict
• Costs Award
• Permit Conditions
• Animal Welfare
• Administrative Appeal
• Costs-award

S v Smith (80/86)

S v Smith (80/86) [1986] ZASCA 67 (29 May 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

80/86

Judges

Rabie, Jansen, Botha, Hefer, Nestadt

The court held that a permit holder who transports beyond the permit’s scope commits the offence under section 31(1)(b), not section 31(1)(a).

• Mens Rea
• Statutory Interpretation
• Road Transport Act
• Permit Conditions
• Statutory-interpretation
• Criminal-law