South Africa Case Law

Solidarity Trade Union and Others v Minister of Health and Others

The Court held that the matter was properly before it despite being an abstract challenge, but that sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 were constitutionally invalid because, on their face, they were not rationally connected to the asserted purposes of broadening access to health care and enforcing norms and standards, and they unjustifiably limited the section 22 right to choose a trade, occupation or profession freely. The provisions were therefore severed from the Act and the High Court’s order was confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Abstract challenge
• Rationality
• Section 22 freedom to choose trade, occupation or profession
• Section 36 limitations analysis
• Severance
• Confirmation of constitutional invalidity

Ndhlovu v Correctional Supervision Parole Board and Others (2025/16719)

Ndhlovu v Correctional Supervision Parole Board and Others (2025/16719) [2025] ZAGPJHC 427 (29 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/16719

Judge

Raubenheimer

The High Court dismissed an urgent review of a parole postponement, holding that no final parole decision had been made and no reviewable administrative action was shown.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Parole Review
• Jurisdictional Facts
• Rule 53 Procedure
• Rationality
• Reasonableness

South African Municipal Workers’ Union v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Another

The majority held that extending section 71B to all municipal staff members unjustifiably limited the political rights protected by section 19 of the Constitution because the blanket prohibition was overbroad and not shown to be sufficiently connected to its purpose under section 36(1); the existing narrow limitation was a less restrictive means, so the Labour Court’s declaration of invalidity was confirmed and made retrospective from 1 November 2022.

Source excerpt

• Constitutional invalidity
• Limitation of political rights
• Rationality
• Section 36 justification
• Retrospective effect
• Severance

Keegans Auto Spares and Accessories CC t/a Jaymees Midas v National Treasury of South Africa and Others (38145/2022)

Keegans Auto Spares and Accessories CC t/a Jaymees Midas v National Treasury of South Africa and Others (38145/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 552 (18 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38145/2022

Judge

N Davis

Leave to appeal was refused in a tender review matter after the court found the applicant’s bid non-compliant, with no reasonable prospects of success.

• Tender Review
• Bid Compliance
• Rationality
• Leave To Appeal
• Public Procurement
• Tender-review

AfriRent (Pty) Ltd v Rand West City Local Municipality and Another (2023-052811)

AfriRent (Pty) Ltd v Rand West City Local Municipality and Another (2023-052811) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1430 (11 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-052811

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court held that Rand West City Local Municipality acted rationally in refusing to award the tender to Afrirent due to its failure to provide a statement of tax liability, as requested. Fleet Horizon Solutions (Pty) Ltd was not legally required to submit audited financial statements, and therefore, its bid was lawfully accepted despite its initial representation. The post-award condition required only negotiation to decrease the price, not an actual reduction, and evidence of such negotiation was present. There was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusio…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Tender Review
• Strict Compliance
• Rationality
• Costs Award

AfriRent (Pty) Ltd v Rand West City Local Municipality and Another (2023-052811)

AfriRent (Pty) Ltd v Rand West City Local Municipality and Another (2023-052811) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1192 (23 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-052811

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court dismissed a tender review, finding Afrirent’s disqualification for nondisclosure of SARS information was rational and lawful.

• Municipal Supply Chain Management
• Tender Review
• Rationality
• Tax Compliance Requirements
• Bid Disqualification
• Tender-review

Eskom v Vaal River Development Association (Pty) Ltd and Others

The appeal was dismissed because the majority held that, for purposes of the interim interdict and proposed PAJA review, the residents had shown a sufficient prima facie case based on the infringement of constitutional rights by Eskom’s substantial reduction of electricity supply and the alleged lack of fair process; the harm was ongoing and severe, the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the pre-reduction supply pending review, and the High Court’s interim order was properly sustained. Leave to appeal was granted but the interim interdict remained in force.

Source excerpt

• Interim interdicts
• Bulk electricity supply
• Reduction of electricity supply
• Prima facie right
• Paja review
• Subsidiarity

Walus v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (CCT 221/21)

Walus v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (CCT 221/21) [2022] ZACC 39; 2023 (2) BCLR 224 (CC); 2023 (2) SA 473 (CC); 2023 (1) SACR 447 (CC) (21 November 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 221/21

Judges

Zondo CJ, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mhlantla J, Mlambo AJ, Theron J, Tshiqi J, Unterhalter AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the Minister’s refusal of parole to Janusz Walus was irrational and ordered that he be placed on parole.

• Parole Review
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Life Imprisonment
• Rationality
• Remedies Under Paja
• Sentencing Remarks

Department of Defence v Thamaga N.O (JR 899/19)

Department of Defence v Thamaga N.O (JR 899/19) [2022] ZALCJHB 93; [2022] 8 BLLR 723 (LC) (30 March 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 899/19

Judge

Moshoana

The Labour Court held that the application to review the disciplinary sanction imposed by the chairperson must be considered under a legality review, focusing on reasonableness and rationality. The sanction of a final written warning, coupled with an order for repayment, was found to be appropriate for the charge of negligent mismanagement, which did not involve dishonesty or fraud. The court emphasized that progressive discipline is a corrective measure and that dismissal is not automatically warranted for negligence, especially as a first offence. The court further found that the delay in l…

Source excerpt

• Legality Review
• Disciplinary Sanctions
• Progressive Discipline
• Administrative Action
• Unreasonable Decision
• Rationality

Speaker of the National Assembly v Public Protector; Democratic Alliance v Public Protector

The Court held that the matter was urgent and that direct appeal was in the interests of justice. It upheld the High Court’s invalidation of the proviso in rule 129AD(3) because limiting representation to a lawyer or expert who may not participate was irrational and inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of a reasonable and procedurally fair enquiry. However, it overturned the High Court on rule 129V, holding that a Judge may permissibly serve on the independent panel because the role is non-judicial, advisory, time-limited, and protected by consultation with the Chief Justice, so i…

Source excerpt

• Section 194 removal process for chapter 9 institution office-bearers
• Legal representation in impeachment/removal proceedings
• Separation of powers
• Rationality
• Procedural fairness
• Cross-appeal