South Africa Case Law

Body Corporate of Argyle Green v Appeal Authority City of Johannesburg and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (2021/9113)

Body Corporate of Argyle Green v Appeal Authority City of Johannesburg and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (2021/9113) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1095 (28 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/9113

Judge

Sarita Liebenberg

Leave to appeal was refused in a Johannesburg High Court dispute about striking hearsay-heavy affidavits and the status of JRA revised comments in a rezoning matter.

• Hearsay Evidence
• Striking Out Affidavit Matter
• Municipal Planning
• Administrative Action
• Procedural Rationality
• Hearsay-evidence

e.tv (Pty) Limited v Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies and Others; Media Monitoring Africa and Another v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others (89/22;CCT 92/22)

e.tv (Pty) Limited v Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies and Others; Media Monitoring Africa and Another v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others (89/22;CCT 92/22) [2022] ZACC 22; 2022 (9) BCLR 1055 (CC); 2023 (3) SA 1 (CC) (28 June 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 89/22; CCT 92/22

Judges

Kollapen, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Mlambo, Theron, Tshiqi, Unterhalter

The Constitutional Court held that the Minister's determination of the analogue switch-off date and the STB registration deadline was unlawful and irrational. The Minister exercised executive power, but the process leading to the decision failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for affected households to register for STBs. The Minister did not properly consult with all relevant parties, and the process was tainted by procedural irrationality. The Court found that the Minister lacked reliable information on the number of households requiring STBs and failed to mitigate the adverse im…

Source excerpt

• Procedural Rationality
• Ministerial Powers
• Digital Migration Policy
• Consultation Requirements
• Legality Review
• Broadcasting Regulation

Sesoko and Others v Office of the Public Protector and Others (74427/19)

Sesoko and Others v Office of the Public Protector and Others (74427/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 390 (1 June 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

74427/19

Judge

Kooverjie

The High Court reviewed and set aside the Public Protector’s findings and remedial action over IPID recruitment and procurement irregularities.

• Legality Review
• Procedural Rationality
• Remedial Action
• Maladministration
• Public Procurement
• Appointment Irregularities

Solomons v Phokela NO and Others (JR99/2021)

Solomons v Phokela NO and Others (JR99/2021) [2021] ZALCJHB 192 (2 August 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR99/2021

Judge

G N Moshoana

The Labour Court held that a rescission application is not competent following a dismissal ruling under section 138(5)(a) of the LRA, as such a ruling is not an arbitration award or ruling but an exercise of statutory function. The CCMA commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain and refuse the rescission application, rendering the rescission ruling a nullity. The review application was dismissed as moot, but the Court declared the original dismissal ruling irrational, invalid, and ineffective in law due to procedural irrationality—specifically, the failure to consider the parties' agreemen…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Rescission Application
• Arbitration Proceedings
• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Procedural Rationality

Democratic Alliance v Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and Others (Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution Intervening) (83145/2016)

Democratic Alliance v Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and Others (Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution Intervening) (83145/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 53; 2017 (3) SA 212 (GP); [2017] 2 All SA 123 (GP); 2017 (1) SACR 623 (GP) (22 February 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

83145/2016

Judges

PM Mojapelo, TM Makgoka, SP Mothle

The court held that section 231 of the Constitution requires prior parliamentary approval before the executive may deliver a notice of withdrawal from an international treaty such as the Rome Statute. The executive's unilateral delivery of the notice of withdrawal, without parliamentary approval and before the repeal of the Implementation Act, was unconstitutional and invalid. The court found that the separation of powers doctrine prohibits the executive from terminating international agreements without legislative involvement. The process followed by the executive was procedurally irrational…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Powers
• Treaty Withdrawal
• Parliamentary Approval
• Rome Statute
• Procedural Rationality
• Public Participation