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 [2019] ZAGPPHC 291

South African Arms and Ammunition Dealers' Association v National Commissioner of the South African Police Services and Others (38807/2019)

South African Arms and Ammunition Dealers' Association v National Commissioner of the South African Police Services and Others (38807/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 291 (11 July 2019)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
38807/2019
Judge
Millar

The court found that the Firearms Control Act and its Regulations, properly construed, permit the replacement of firearm barrels by licensed gunsmiths. The respondents' blanket refusal to authorize barrel replacements is not supported by the Act or Regulations. The applicant demonstrated a prima facie right and commercial interest worthy of protection, as recognized by the Act. The internal remedy of appealing to the Appeal Board is inadequate, given the respondents' predetermined refusal of all such applications. The requirements for an interim interdict were met, as the refusal impacts the…

Source excerpt

  • Firearms Control Act
  • Interim Interdict
  • Administrative Action
  • Internal Remedies
  • Policy Decision
  • Licensing Of Firearms
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2008] ZAGPHC 195

Londoloza Forestry Consortium (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Forestry Company Limited and Others (28738/2006)

Londoloza Forestry Consortium (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Forestry Company Limited and Others (28738/2006) [2008] ZAGPHC 195 (12 May 2008)

Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Case number
28738/2006
Judge
B R Du Plessis

The court found that the applicants failed to establish, even on a prima facie basis, any contractual right to be negotiated with as reserve bidder. The terms of the ITO and correspondence made it clear that participation in the process did not create any rights or obligations to negotiate. The applicants' bid had expired, and no consensus was reached for further extension. The decision to terminate the privatisation process was a policy decision taken by the Minister of Public Enterprises in his executive capacity, not administrative action under PAJA, and was therefore not reviewable under…

Source excerpt

  • Interim Interdict
  • Privatisation Process
  • Legitimate Expectation
  • Contractual Obligation
  • Policy Decision
  • Review Of Executive Action
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.