South Africa Case Law

Mankuroane and Others v Buti and Others (M164/23)

Mankuroane and Others v Buti and Others (M164/23) [2025] ZANWHC 118 (15 July 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M164/23

Judge

A Reddy

The court found that the applicants, as the Paramount Chief, Traditional Council, and registered cooperative, have locus standi as persons in charge and lawful custodians of the land under both statutory and customary law. The respondents are unlawful occupiers, having no permission or legal right to occupy the land, and have continued their occupation despite previous court orders. The applicants failed to serve the required PIE notice on the third and fourth respondents, rendering the application against them fatally defective. The remaining respondents have not raised a valid defence, and…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Customary Land Rights
• Locus Standi
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Municipal Services
• Public Interest Litigation

#Unitebehind v Buthelezi and Others (2022/034768)

#Unitebehind v Buthelezi and Others (2022/034768) [2025] ZAGPJHC 613 (17 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/034768

Judge

X Stylianou

The court found that #UniteBehind satisfied all criteria for intervention as a respondent in the review application. It is a bona fide public interest organisation with a track record of advocacy and litigation against corruption and maladministration at PRASA. Its objectives are aligned with upholding constitutional norms, and the review application concerns issues of profound constitutional and public importance. #UniteBehind has demonstrated prior involvement in PRASA-related disputes, including assisting the Commission and participating in related litigation. The court rejected the respon…

Source excerpt

• Standing In Constitutional Matters
• Intervention As Party
• State Capture Review
• Public Interest Litigation
• Prasa Governance
• Corruption And Maladministration

Tedstone Flats CC and Others v Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC209/2021B)

Tedstone Flats CC and Others v Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC209/2021B) [2025] ZALCC 28 (11 June 2025)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC209/2021B

Judge

Mabasa AJ

The Land Court reopened a moot land-relocation matter to decide reserved costs and ordered the City of Ekurhuleni to pay Part A costs, including two counsel.

• Variation Of Court Orders
• Costs Award
• Functus Officio
• Review Application Mootness
• Municipal Obligations
• Public Interest Litigation

Affected Community Members of Bodibe Tau Rapulana v Lafarge Cements and Others (M489/2021)

Affected Community Members of Bodibe Tau Rapulana v Lafarge Cements and Others (M489/2021) [2025] ZANWHC 54 (13 March 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M489/2021

Judge

Masike

The applicant is an unincorporated association lacking legal personality and cannot sue or be sued in its own name. The founding affidavit fails to establish locus standi under the common law or section 38(d) of the Constitution, as the applicant does not act on behalf of the community with proper authorization, nor has it met the requirements for a class action. The absence of confirmatory affidavits and specificity regarding affected members and damages further undermines the application. The tribal council, as the recognized representative body, has not authorized the proceedings. The proc…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Class Action Certification
• Public Interest Litigation
• Mining Related Nuisance
• Constitutional Rights Enforcement

Lang v ABSA Bank and Others (079773/2023)

Lang v ABSA Bank and Others (079773/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1244 (2 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

079773/2023

Judge

N Manoim

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate locus standi, as none of the grounds advanced afforded him standing to seek declaratory relief. The applicant's attempt to rely on his changed status due to sequestration and the classification of banks as public interest entities was unsupported by legal authority and irrelevant to the private nature of his dispute with the banks. The relief sought was abstract and hypothetical, as it did not present a justiciable controversy and would not bind investigative authorities or preclude them from acting independently. The applicant's notice…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Declaratory Relief
• Public Interest Litigation
• Costs Award

Pembeshiya and Others v Kumkani Mhlontlo Local Municipality and Others (4482/2024)

Pembeshiya and Others v Kumkani Mhlontlo Local Municipality and Others (4482/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 93 (26 November 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

4482/2024

Judge

M Mhambi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as their founding affidavit contained only general and conclusory statements without explicit reasons why the matter should be heard urgently. The applicants did not demonstrate that substantial redress could not be achieved in the ordinary course. On locus standi, the court accepted that the applicants, as community members acting in the public interest, had standing under Section 38(d) of the Constitution. However, the requirements for interim relief were not satisfied: there was no evidence of irreparable harm or incompetence…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Appointments
• Interim Interdict
• Locus Standi
• Urgency
• Public Interest Litigation

Roodeberg Residents Association NPC v Drakenstein Municipality and Others (15768/2023)

Roodeberg Residents Association NPC v Drakenstein Municipality and Others (15768/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 271 (19 September 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15768/2023

Judge

Nziweni

The High Court ordered costs against a residents association after it withdrew an urgent application on the eve of hearing, finding it was not genuine public interest litigation.

• Costs On Withdrawal
• Public Interest Litigation
• Standing
• Municipal Land Use Planning
• De Bonis Propriis
• Urgent Interdict

Sakeliga NPC and Others v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Others (M311/2021)

Sakeliga NPC and Others v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Others (M311/2021) [2024] ZANWHC 194 (22 July 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M311/2021

Judge

FMM Reid

The respondents failed to fulfil their constitutional duty to provide sufficient water to the public, resulting in a severe water crisis that affected both people and animals. Their opposition to the application was unwarranted and amounted to an attempt to circumvent their obligations under section 27 of the Constitution. The applicants acted in the public interest and were substantially successful. Given the respondents' conduct and the public interest nature of the litigation, a punitive costs order on the attorney and own client scale is justified to penalize the respondents and encourage…

Source excerpt

• Right Of Access To Water
• Municipal Duties
• Public Interest Litigation
• Punitive Costs
• Attorney And Own Client Scale

Nahoon Estuary Management Forum NPO (Batting Bridge Picnic Site) v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Another (EL 1730/2022)

Nahoon Estuary Management Forum NPO (Batting Bridge Picnic Site) v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Another (EL 1730/2022) [2024] ZAECELLC 11 (2 April 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL 1730/2022

Judge

Zono

The court found that the Municipality is constitutionally and legislatively obliged to perform the functions sought by the applicant, including maintaining the park, controlling access, managing waste, and enforcing relevant Bylaws and the Operational Environmental Management Plan. The Municipality's argument that Bylaws only criminalize conduct and do not impose enforceable duties was rejected; the court held that the Municipality must administer and enforce its own Bylaws and ensure the rights of site users and the community are protected. The Management Plan, compiled by the relevant MEC,…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Bylaws Enforcement
• Public Interest Litigation
• Environmental Rights
• Waste Management
• Access Control In Public Parks
• Local Government Duties

Groundwork Trust and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others (22046/22)

Groundwork Trust and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others (22046/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 117 (8 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22046/22

Judge

J G Cilliers

The High Court refused leave to appeal against dismissal of a PAJA review, finding the applicants had not explained an eight-month delay or shown a basis for extending time.

• Delay In Review Applications
• Extension Of Time Under Paja
• Environmental Authorisation
• Public Interest Litigation
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Orders