South Africa Case Law

Sakeliga NPC v Auditor-General South Africa

Sakeliga NPC v Auditor-General South Africa [2023] ZAGPPHC 501; 36297/2022 (30 June 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

36297/2022

Judge

Swanepoel

The court held that section 78 of PAIA is peremptory and precludes a requester from approaching the court before exhausting administrative remedies. The amended PAIA provides a complaints procedure to the Information Regulator for public bodies defined in section 1(b), such as the Auditor-General. The use of 'may' in section 77A(2) gives the requester a choice to pursue the complaint or not, but does not permit bypassing the administrative process for direct court access. The constitutional obligation to publish reports applies only to audit reports as defined in section 188 of the Constituti…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies
• Municipal Finance Management
• Constitutional Obligation To Publish
• Public Accountability

Public Protector of SA v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (8500 / 2022)

Public Protector of SA v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (8500 / 2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 117 (10 June 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8500 / 2022

Judges

Erasmus, Dolamo, Wille

The court held that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for interim interdictory relief. The mere filing of a rescission application does not suspend the operation of the Constitutional Court's order, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to suspend such orders. Issue estoppel applies, as the applicant previously sought and was refused similar relief. No prima facie right or irreparable harm was demonstrated, and the balance of convenience favours the continuation of the constitutionally mandated impeachment process. The President is not automatically conflicted by virtue of pending…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Impeachment Proceedings
• Separation Of Powers
• Issue Estoppel
• Public Accountability
• Conflict Of Interest

Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC v Pirelli Tyre (Pty) Ltd (69164/2019)

Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC v Pirelli Tyre (Pty) Ltd (69164/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 247 (19 April 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

69164/2019

Judge

Sardiwalla

The court found that the respondent was contractually and statutorily obliged to pay the waste tyre management fee under the REDISA Plan and Deed of Adherence. The respondent did not dispute its indebtedness or the quantum but raised a collateral challenge regarding the lawfulness of the fee, alleging the applicant failed to review the fee annually and consult with consumer bodies. The court held that the REDISA Plan did not impose an absolute obligation on the applicant to include the respondent in the review process, and the applicant had complied with its notification obligations. The resp…

Source excerpt

• Waste Tyre Management Fee
• Contractual Compliance
• Collateral Challenge
• Administrative Action Review
• Public Accountability

Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others; Economic Freedom Fighters v State Attorney and Others (21405/18; 29984/18)

Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others; Economic Freedom Fighters v State Attorney and Others (21405/18; 29984/18) [2018] ZAGPPHC 836; [2019] 1 All SA 681 (GP) (13 December 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21405/18; 29984/18

Judges

P.A. Meyer, A.P. Ledwaba, E.M. Kubushi

The court held that the decisions by the Presidency and State Attorney to procure private legal representation for Mr Zuma and to pay his private legal costs in defending criminal charges and related civil proceedings were not authorised by section 3 of the State Attorney Act or regulation 12.2.1 of the Treasury Regulations. These provisions do not empower the state to fund private legal costs for government officials acting in their personal capacities. The impugned decisions amounted to a breach of the principle of legality, were unconstitutional, and fell to be set aside. The court found t…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Principle Of Legality
• State Attorney Act
• Public Finance Management Act
• Judicial Review
• Public Accountability

Ubuntu Technology (Pty) Ltd v Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport : Mpumalanga and Another (52117/2015)

Ubuntu Technology (Pty) Ltd v Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport : Mpumalanga and Another (52117/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 792 (10 September 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

52117/2015

Judge

Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

The High Court dismissed Ubuntu Technology’s delict claim over fraudulently ordered laptops, finding no legal duty, wrongfulness, or negligence by the Provincial department.

• Pure Economic Loss
• Duty Of Care
• Wrongfulness
• Public Accountability
• Negligence
• Pure-economic-loss

Leepile v The Minister of Police (2585/2014)

Leepile v The Minister of Police (2585/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 678 (18 September 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2585/2014

Judge

Mogotsi

The court found that SAPS senior management had crucial information about threats to the plaintiff's property and undertook to protect her house but failed to communicate this to operational units or take any steps to monitor or protect the property. The omission was wrongful in law, as SAPS had a constitutional and statutory duty to protect the plaintiff and her property, and the plaintiff reasonably relied on their assurances. The defendant conceded that there was no defence to the main and alternative pleas. The court held the Minister of Police vicariously liable for 100% of the plaintiff…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Wrongful Omission
• Duty Of Care
• Constitutional Duties Of Police
• Damages
• Public Accountability

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Hlophe and Others (1035/2013)

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Hlophe and Others (1035/2013) [2015] ZASCA 16; [2015] 2 All SA 251 (SCA) (18 March 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1035/2013

Judges

Brand, Maya, Willis, Schoeman, Van der Merwe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a mandamus against municipal functionaries is competent and appropriate where they are statutorily responsible for ensuring compliance with court orders. The functionaries were not prejudiced by their joinder in the enforcement application, as the need for their involvement only arose after the City's persistent non-compliance. The principle of public accountability, enshrined in the Constitution and relevant statutes, justifies such orders to ensure effective implementation of judicial decisions. However, the reporting order imposed by the court a quo wa…

Source excerpt

• Mandamus Against Municipal Functionaries
• Separation Of Powers
• Eviction And Alternative Accommodation
• Public Accountability
• Local Government Obligations
• Constitutional Compliance Of Temporary Shelter

Taylor v S (A352/2007)

Taylor v S (A352/2007) [2009] ZAWCHC 222 (26 November 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A352/2007

Judges

Le Grange, Traverso

The High Court dismissed Taylor’s application for leave to appeal against his fraud conviction, rejecting claims that SARS investigators acted unfairly or violated his fair-trial rights.

• Fraud
• Right To Fair Trial
• Public Accountability
• Section 195 Constitution
• Fair-trial-rights
• Public-accountability

F v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (4194/2006)

F v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (4194/2006) [2009] ZAWCHC 101; 2009 (2) SACR 639 (WCC) ; 2010 (1) SA 606 (WCC) (26 June 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4194/2006

Judge

Bozalek

The court found that Van Wyk, although not on formal duty, was on stand-by duty and in possession of a police vehicle allocated for SAPS purposes. The connection between his wrongful conduct and his employment was sufficiently close: he used the police vehicle to abduct, assault, and rape the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's belief that he was a police officer influenced her acceptance of his assistance. The SAPS code of conduct, mission statement, and constitutional obligations to protect vulnerable persons, especially children, reinforced the public policy considerations supporting vicarious…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Intentional Delict
• Bill Of Rights Protection
• Police Misconduct
• Public Accountability
• Constitutional Damages

Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Carmichele (533/02)

Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Carmichele (533/02) [2003] ZASCA 117; [2003] 4 All SA 565 (SCA); 2004 (2) BCLR 133 (SCA); 2004 (3) SA 305 (SCA) (14 November 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

533/02

Judges

Harms, Streicher, Farlam, Navsa, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State is delictually liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the negligent failure of police and prosecutors to oppose bail for Coetzee, a dangerous accused. The officials had a public law duty, reinforced by departmental guidelines and constitutional obligations, to oppose bail or present all relevant facts to the court. Their failure to do so was both wrongful and negligent, as a reasonable official would have foreseen the risk of further violent crime and taken steps to prevent release. The court found that, on the probabilities, a magi…

Source excerpt

• State Liability For Negligence
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Duty Of Care
• Wrongfulness
• Causation
• Public Accountability