Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Administrative Law [2023] ZAGPPHC 50

Medical Information Technology South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Public Protector and Others (29760/2020)

Medical Information Technology South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Public Protector and Others (29760/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 50 (31 January 2023)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
29760/2020
Judge
P N Manamela

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that their interests were directly affected by the findings and recommendations of the Public Protector. The remedial actions were directed at government departments and did not have direct negative implications for the applicants. The findings and remedial actions were rational, lawful, and based on sufficient evidence, particularly regarding procurement irregularities and conflict of interest. The applicants lacked locus standi to challenge the Report, and their application for review was dismissed. The court condoned the late instit…

Source excerpt

  • Public Protector Review
  • Maladministration
  • Conflict Of Interest
  • Procurement Irregularities
  • Locus Standi
  • Remedial Action
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2019] ZAECBHC 4

Mbina-Mthembu v Public Protector (208/2018)

Mbina-Mthembu v Public Protector (208/2018) [2019] ZAECBHC 4; [2019] 3 All SA 241 (ECB); 2019 (6) SA 534 (ECB) (7 March 2019)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Case number
208/2018
Judges
C Plasket, V Nqumse

The court held that the Public Protector's findings against the applicant were legally correct and rationally connected to the evidence and law. The diversion of funds from social infrastructure to funeral expenses was unlawful, as Treasury Regulation 6.3.1(c) did not authorise such action and could not override section 43(1) of the PFMA. The procurement process was found to be irregular and did not comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, with the applicant centrally involved in approving payments without adherence to prescribed procedures. The transfer of public funds to a pri…

Source excerpt

  • Public Protector Review
  • Maladministration
  • Error Of Law
  • Procurement Irregularities
  • Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.