South Africa Case Law

Pilisanani Trading Enterprise 50 CC v Information Regulator (South Africa) and Others (D1269/2022)

Pilisanani Trading Enterprise 50 CC v Information Regulator (South Africa) and Others (D1269/2022) [2025] ZAKZDHC 45 (16 July 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D1269/2022

Judge

Olsen

The court held that the Information Regulator's refusal to condone the late submission of the applicant's complaint was reasonable and not reviewable. The applicant failed to provide a full and persuasive explanation for the delay, particularly for the period after it became aware of the legislative requirements. The applicant's ignorance of the law, especially given its legal representation, was not a sufficient excuse. Furthermore, the request for access to records was fatally defective for failing to identify the underlying right to be exercised or protected, as required by PAIA. The Regul…

Source excerpt

• Condonation Of Late Filing
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Failure To Exhaust Internal Remedies
• Unreasonableness
• Irrationality

Tariefdienste (Pty) Ltd v Executive Mayor of JB Marks Local Municipality and Others (1841/2024)

Tariefdienste (Pty) Ltd v Executive Mayor of JB Marks Local Municipality and Others (1841/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 98 (10 June 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1841/2024

Judge

A. Reddy

The court found that the applicant had locus standi to bring the application for access to municipal account information under PAIA, having demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The applicant complied with all procedural requirements of PAIA, and the respondents failed to invoke any valid statutory ground for refusal or provide factual evidence to justify withholding the information. The respondents' reliance solely on a Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) notice was insufficient, as it did not constitute a defence supported by evidence. In the absence of an an…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Locus Standi
• Municipal Information Disclosure
• Rule 6 5 D Iii Notice
• Costs Award

Thabazimbi Air Compressors (Pty) Ltd v ACDC Winding (Pty) Ltd (39556/2020)

Thabazimbi Air Compressors (Pty) Ltd v ACDC Winding (Pty) Ltd (39556/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 532 (22 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39556/2020

Judge

H F Jacobs

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a taxed bill of costs and compel documents, holding the applicant used the wrong procedure and PAIA did not apply.

• Taxed Bill Of Costs
• Review Of Taxing Master
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Abuse Of Process
• Taxed-bill-of-costs
• Review-of-taxing-master

Pick n Pay Retailers Proprietary Limited v Lakeside City Trading 226 Proprietary Limited t/a Pick n Pay Family Store Protea North (2025-056881)

Pick n Pay Retailers Proprietary Limited v Lakeside City Trading 226 Proprietary Limited t/a Pick n Pay Family Store Protea North (2025-056881) [2025] ZAGPPHC 505 (16 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-056881

Judge

Roux AJ

Urgent application granted to perfect a general notarial covering bond over the respondent’s movable assets; the counterapplication for a stay was struck.

• Notarial Covering Bond
• Franchise Agreement Enforcement
• Urgent Interdict
• Specific Performance
• Contractual Variation
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act

Rose v National Prosecuting Authority and Others (056281/2025)

Rose v National Prosecuting Authority and Others (056281/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 549 (15 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

056281/2025

Judge

Neukircher

The court held that the accused's representations to the National Prosecuting Authority are privileged and made on a without-prejudice basis, as confirmed by the NPA's PAIA Manual and relevant case law. The applicant, as a private prosecutor, does not stand in the same position as the NDPP, as he acts in his own interest and not in the public interest. Disclosure of the representations would confer an unfair advantage in criminal proceedings, allowing the applicant to tailor his evidence to the accused's version. The exceptions to the privilege rule do not apply in this case, and the applican…

Source excerpt

• Private Prosecution
• Legal Privilege
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Nolle Prosequi
• Without Prejudice Rule

Nedbank Limited v Niemann (2019/4132)

Nedbank Limited v Niemann (2019/4132) [2025] ZAGPJHC 656 (17 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/4132

Judge

Dippenaar

The court found that the plaintiff complied with the procedural requirements of sections 129 and 130 of the National Credit Act by sending the requisite notices and allowing the statutory time periods to lapse before instituting proceedings. The defendant did not formally refer any dispute to the Banking Ombud, nor did he respond to the section 129 notice or accept any proposals. The defendant's dispute regarding the interest calculation was collateral and did not pertain to his arrears, which were undisputed. The PAIA application was lodged after proceedings commenced and was responded to by…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Debt Enforcement
• Instalment Sale Agreement
• Notice Of Default
• Securitisation
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act

Carolina Local Economic Development Centre and Another v Ilima Coal Company (Pty) Ltd and Others (38545/2022)

Carolina Local Economic Development Centre and Another v Ilima Coal Company (Pty) Ltd and Others (38545/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 113 (13 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38545/2022

Judge

Holland-Muter

PAIA review dismissed: the applicants failed to exhaust procedures, lacked locus standi, and misjoined distinct respondents in a broad records request.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Locus Standi
• Misjoinder
• Jurisdiction
• Costs Award
• Paia

Dastile v Superintendent General for the Department of Health Eastern Cape (1104A/2024)

Dastile v Superintendent General for the Department of Health Eastern Cape (1104A/2024) [2025] ZAECBHC 5 (7 February 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

1104A/2024

Judge

B Hartle

The High Court dismissed a contempt application arising from a PAIA order, finding the order was too vague and service was procedurally deficient.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Contempt Of Court
• Service Of Process
• Default Judgment
• Contempt-of-court
• Paia

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others [2024] ZASCA 166; 2025 (2) SA 408 (SCA) (4 December 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

862/2022

Judges

Zondi, Schippers, Hughes, Meyer, Tlaletsi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the forensic investigation report was not protected by legal professional privilege or litigation privilege under section 67 of PAIA, as its dominant purpose was to investigate accounting irregularities and enable Steinhoff to produce financial statements, not to obtain legal advice or prepare for litigation. The evidence did not support the assertion that litigation was pending or contemplated at the time of commissioning the report. Even if privilege existed, it was waived by Steinhoff's publication of the overview, which disclosed the substance and key…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Public Interest Override
• Corporate Fraud
• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Waiver Of Privilege

Nene v Auditor-General of South Africa and Others (6136/2024)

Nene v Auditor-General of South Africa and Others (6136/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1094 (25 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

6136/2024

Judge

LE Grange

The court found that the Auditor-General had complied with rule 53 by providing all documents that served before the decision-maker at the time of the impugned decisions. The applicant's request for additional documents was overbroad and sought materials extraneous to the record of proceedings. Discovery under rule 35 was premature as pleadings had not closed and relevance could not be properly assessed. Regarding the PAIA request, the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify direct recourse to the court. Accordingly, the appli…

Source excerpt

• Rule 53 Record Of Proceedings
• Rule 30a Non Compliance
• Rule 35 Discovery
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies