South Africa Case Law

Labour Party of South Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (2025/092790)

Labour Party of South Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (2025/092790) [2025] ZAGPPHC 743 (17 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025/092790

Judge

de Vos

The Court found that the President's constitutional duty to promote national unity under section 83(c) inherently includes the power to initiate processes such as the National Dialogue. The Labour Party failed to establish a prima facie right, as the President's actions were rationally linked to the constitutional objective of fostering national unity. There was no evidence of unlawful expenditure or exclusion from the process, and the R700 million figure was not final nor proven to breach public finance laws. The alleged harms were either speculative, not irreparable, or capable of redress t…

Source excerpt

• Presidential Powers
• Interim Interdict
• Public Participation
• Separation Of Powers
• Public Finance Management Act
• Rationality Review

Democratic Alliance v Ramaphosa and Others (0027/2024EC)

Democratic Alliance v Ramaphosa and Others (0027/2024EC) [2024] ZAEC 24 (21 October 2024)

Court

Electoral Court

Case number

0027/2024EC

Judges

Zondi, Adams, Yacoob

The Court held that the President's address did not contravene item 9(2)(e) of the Electoral Code or section 87(1)(g) of the Electoral Act. The address, viewed objectively, was intended to inform the nation about election readiness and encourage democratic participation, not to campaign for the ANC or influence voters unlawfully. The Court found that a restrictive interpretation of the Code and Act, as urged by the DA, would unduly inhibit the President's constitutional obligations and citizens' rights to receive information. The President did not misuse public funds or abuse his position to…

Source excerpt

• Electoral Code Of Conduct
• Abuse Of Power
• Undue Influence
• Presidential Powers
• Free And Fair Elections

Zuma v Office of the Public Protector and Others (1447/2018)

Zuma v Office of the Public Protector and Others (1447/2018) [2020] ZASCA 138 (30 October 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1447/2018

Judges

Maya P, Zondi JA, Dambuza JA, Schippers JA, Unterhalter AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Mr Zuma's application for leave to appeal against the punitive costs order had no reasonable prospect of success. The high court exercised its discretion judicially and applied the correct legal principles in awarding personal and punitive costs against Mr Zuma, who acted in his personal capacity. The court found that Mr Zuma's conduct in launching and pursuing the review application was reckless, motivated by personal interests, and delayed the investigation into serious allegations of state capture. The attempt to appeal only the costs order, without ch…

Source excerpt

• Personal Costs Orders
• Punitive Costs
• Presidential Powers
• Commission Of Inquiry
• State Capture
• Judicial Discretion

Nxumalo v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT162/13)

Nxumalo v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT162/13) [2014] ZACC 27; 2014 (12) BCLR 1457 (CC) (2 October 2014)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 162/13

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Leeuw, Madlanga, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that the President acted unlawfully by purporting to decide the applicant's claim under the new Act, when the Framework Act required him only to implement the Commission's decision. The principle from Sigcau applied: a functionary must act under the correct empowering statute. The High Court erred in not upholding the applicant's contention that the President should have acted under the Framework Act. However, the Court found no merit in the applicant's challenge to the Commission's decision. The Commission, as a specialist body, had reasonably found that the ama…

Source excerpt

• Traditional Leadership Disputes
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Customary Law Application
• Presidential Powers
• Specialist Tribunal Deference

Mansingh v General Council of the Bar and Others (CCT 43/13)

Mansingh v General Council of the Bar and Others (CCT 43/13) [2013] ZACC 40; 2014 (2) SA 26 (CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 85 (CC) (28 November 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 43/13

Judges

Nkabinde, Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that section 84(2)(k) empowers the President to confer senior counsel status on advocates as part of the power to confer honours.

• Presidential Powers
• Conferring Honours
• Interpretation Of Constitution
• Senior Counsel Appointments
• Constitutional-law
• Presidential-powers

Daniel v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another (CCT 34/13)

Daniel v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another (CCT 34/13) [2013] ZACC 24; 2013 (11) BCLR 1241 (CC) (27 June 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 34/13

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the previous order was erroneously granted. The Court found that the President's failure to appoint a Commission of Inquiry does not constitute a failure to fulfil a constitutional obligation under section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution. Section 84(2)(f) confers a discretionary power, not a duty, and the applicant's claim does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. The Court reaffirmed that High Courts have jurisdiction over such matters and that the applicant could seek relief elsewher…

Source excerpt

• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Rescission Of Order
• Commission Of Inquiry
• Presidential Powers

Sigcau v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 93/12)

Sigcau v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 93/12) [2013] ZACC 18; 2013 (9) BCLR 1091 (CC) (13 June 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 93/12

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Froneman, Jafta, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that the old Act governed the recognition and removal of kingship in this dispute, as the Commission's decision was made before the new Act came into operation. The President's notice, issued under the new Act, was invalid because the new Act only permitted recommendations by the Commission, whereas the old Act required decisions. The material differences between the Acts meant that the President could not implement the Commission's decision under the new Act. The notice was therefore set aside. The Court found it unnecessary to address the remaining issues, as t…

Source excerpt

• Traditional Leadership
• Statutory Interpretation
• Retrospective Application Of Statutes
• Customary Law
• Presidential Powers

Mansingh v President of Republic of South Africa and Others (20879/2011)

Mansingh v President of Republic of South Africa and Others (20879/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 3; 2012 (3) SA 192 (GNP); [2012] 2 All SA 295 (GNP); 2012 (6) BCLR 650 (GNP) (9 February 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20879/2011

Judge

Phatudi

Section 84(2)(k) of the Constitution does not empower the President to confer the status of senior counsel on practising advocates. The historical prerogative to appoint Queen's or King's Counsel was codified in earlier constitutions but was deliberately excluded from the current constitutional framework. The Constitution makes a clean break from the past and only authorises the President to confer honours for distinguished service to the country, such as national orders. The conferral of senior counsel status is a professional advancement, not an honour as contemplated by section 84(2)(k). T…

Source excerpt

• Presidential Powers
• Conferring Honours
• Senior Counsel Status
• Constitutional Interpretation