South Africa Case Law

Government Employees Medical Scheme and Others v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Others (1000/19)

Government Employees Medical Scheme and Others v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Others (1000/19) [2020] ZASCA 111; [2020] 4 All SA 629 (SCA); 2021 (2) SA 114 (SCA) (29 September 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1000/19

Judges

Ponnan, Mbha, Zondi, Goosen, Mabindla-Boqwana

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Public Protector does not have jurisdiction under sections 6(4) or (5) of the Public Protector Act to investigate the complaint against GEMS. GEMS is a private medical scheme regulated by the Medical Schemes Act and its own rules, serving a restricted class of government employees but not performing a public function or qualifying as a public entity under the Act. The relationship between GEMS and its members is contractual, and complaints are subject to statutory procedures under the Medical Schemes Act, which Mr Ngwato failed to exhaust. The Public…

Source excerpt

• Public Protector Jurisdiction
• Medical Schemes Act
• Subpoena Powers
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Public Function Test

City of Cape Town v Khaya Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others (158/2015)

City of Cape Town v Khaya Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others (158/2015) [2016] ZASCA 107; 2016 (5) SA 579 (SCA); [2016] 4 All SA 1 (SCA) (26 July 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

158/2015

Judges

Maya DP, Majiedt JA, Seriti JA, Willis JA, Victor AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Khaya Projects (Pty) Ltd, as a private construction company contracted by Peer Africa (and not directly by the City), does not incur constitutional obligations independent of its statutory or contractual obligations when building state-funded housing. The principle of subsidiarity requires the City to first exhaust available statutory and contractual remedies before seeking constitutional relief. The contract between Peer Africa and Khaya Projects did not expressly impose constitutional obligations, and mere reference to the constitutional context in the…

Source excerpt

• Right To Adequate Housing
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Locus Standi
• Contractual Liability
• Arbitration Lapse
• Public Function Test

Pegma Thirteen Investments (Pty) Ltd v Free State Development Corporation (2681/2006)

Pegma Thirteen Investments (Pty) Ltd v Free State Development Corporation (2681/2006) [2008] ZAFSHC 72 (18 September 2008)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2681/2006

Judge

M H Rampai

The court held that the Free State Development Corporation is an organ of state and upheld the special plea for lack of notice under section 3 of Act 40 of 2002.

• Organ Of State Definition
• Notice Of Intended Legal Proceedings
• Governmental Control
• Public Function Test
• Special Plea
• Section 3 Act 40 2002