South Africa Case Law

HOD: Western Cape Education Department and Others v Equal Education Law Centre and Others (1003/2023)

HOD: Western Cape Education Department and Others v Equal Education Law Centre and Others (1003/2023) [2025] ZASCA 116 (11 August 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1003/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Mbatha, Windell, Bloem, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Rule 53(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court is limited to the production of records relevant to the administrative decision subject to judicial review. The High Court erred by granting an order compelling the Department to produce documents and information unrelated to the specific review relief sought, including materials intended to support declaratory and mandamus claims. Such relief requires separate procedural mechanisms and cannot be obtained through Rule 53. The Department had provided a record sufficient for the review of its placement decisions f…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 53
• Judicial Review
• Right To Education
• Mandamus Relief
• Declaratory Relief
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Ingerop South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others (11175/2024)

Ingerop South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others (11175/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 336 (6 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11175/2024

Judges

Lekhukeni, Sipunzi

High Court held it lacked PAJA jurisdiction over a tender review and, in any event, the application was filed out of time without adequate condonation.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Jurisdiction Of High Courts
• Condonation For Late Review
• Tender Review
• Delay In Instituting Proceedings
• Administrative-law

Batumile Investments (Pty) Ltd v Rustenburg Local Municipality and Others (M247/2023)

Batumile Investments (Pty) Ltd v Rustenburg Local Municipality and Others (M247/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 123 (23 July 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M247/2023

Judge

R D Hendricks

A tender review was dismissed after the validity period expired, the applicant had not exhausted internal remedies, and the court found the matter moot.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Failure To Award Tender
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Mootness
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Administrative-law

Mkhonto and Others v Bushbuckridge Local Municipality and Others (218/2024)

Mkhonto and Others v Bushbuckridge Local Municipality and Others (218/2024) [2025] ZASCA 111 (23 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

218/2024

Judges

Matojane, Weiner, Koen, Phatshoane, Molitsoane

The SCA struck a reconsideration application from the roll, finding no exceptional circumstances to reopen refusal of special leave to appeal.

• Municipal Staff Restructuring
• Policy Framework Compliance
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Local Government Municipal Systems Act
• Special Leave To Appeal

Sitrusrand Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (097109/2023)

Sitrusrand Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (097109/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 758 (22 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

097109/2023

Judge

Kekana

Review dismissed: the court held that the Department properly refused a corporate visa recommendation because local skills were available and the process was fair.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Corporate Visa
• Immigration Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Rationality Review
• Corporate-visa

Burgerbrug Beleggings (Pty) Ltd v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (20135/2022)

Burgerbrug Beleggings (Pty) Ltd v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (20135/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 763 (21 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20135/2022

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The court found that the City’s decision to issue contravention notices to Burgerbrug constitutes administrative action under PAJA, as it is a demand with direct legal effect. However, Burgerbrug failed to establish any grounds for review under PAJA, as it did not demonstrate that the City acted unlawfully or irrationally in issuing the notices. The owner’s duty to secure its property and ensure compliance with planning and building regulations is affirmed, and the municipality’s enforcement powers are not displaced by the owner’s absence or neglect. The court rejected Burgerbrug’s constituti…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Land Use Regulation
• Owner Liability For Unlawful Development
• Constitutional Invalidity Review
• Procedural Fairness
• Non Joinder Of Interested Parties

MEC for Health: Gauteng Province and Others v Buhle Waste (Pty) Ltd (338/2024 ; 384/2024)

MEC for Health: Gauteng Province and Others v Buhle Waste (Pty) Ltd (338/2024 ; 384/2024) [2025] ZASCA 102 (15 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

338/2024 & 384/2024

Judges

Mbatha JA, Baartman JA, Steyn AJJA, Tolmay AJJA, Vally AJJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred by setting aside administrative action through a declarator rather than a review under PAJA. The respondent, Buhle Waste, avoided the prescribed review procedure and timeframes, prejudicing the other parties and compromising the public interest in finality of administrative action. The high court granted relief not properly pleaded or canvassed, depriving the appellants of the opportunity to respond with the benefit of the Rule 53 record. The correct procedure for challenging administrative action is a review under PAJA, and declarato…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Tender Review
• Declaratory Relief
• Interdictory Relief
• Pleading Requirements

Kerbyn Cape 2 (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner: SARS (15899/2023)

Kerbyn Cape 2 (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner: SARS (15899/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 308 (11 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15899/2023

Judge

Mantame

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the review application because the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by the Tax Administration Act and PAJA. The applicant did not seek a directive from the High Court to bypass the Tax Court, nor did it demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying such a departure. The mere lapse of time and inaccessibility of internal remedies do not satisfy the duty to exhaust or constitute exceptional circumstances. The applicant's repeated late objections and failure to follow prescribed procedures under the TAA and Tax Court Rules pre…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Condonation For Late Filing

Royal AM Football Club (Pty) Ltd v National Soccer League and Others (2025/054266)

Royal AM Football Club (Pty) Ltd v National Soccer League and Others (2025/054266) [2025] ZAGPPHC 664 (7 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025/054266

Judge

P.G. Seleka

The High Court upheld PSL’s termination of Royal AM’s membership, finding the Board had power to act and that the club misrepresented material facts and failed to meet obligations.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Corporate Governance
• Membership Termination
• Procedural Fairness
• Misrepresentation
• Shareholding Transfer

Liberty Group Limited and Another v Valuation Appeal Board for City of Johannesburg and Others (2023/067833)

Liberty Group Limited and Another v Valuation Appeal Board for City of Johannesburg and Others (2023/067833) [2025] ZAGPJHC 700 (4 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/067833

Judge

Farber AJ

The court found that the Valuation Appeal Board failed to comply with its statutory and constitutional obligations as an administrative decision-making body. The Board did not properly assess or evaluate the competing expert evidence, nor did it provide adequate reasons for preferring the City's valuer over the owners' experts. The Board's reliance on information from unregistered leases in determining market value constituted a breach of section 46(3)(c) of the Municipal Property Rates Act. Furthermore, the Board's uncritical acceptance of the City's evidence and rejection of the owners' evi…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Property Rates Act
• Valuation Review
• Bias In Administrative Decision
• Expert Evidence
• Market Value Determination