South Africa Case Law

Booysen v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (33188/2022)

Booysen v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (33188/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 205 (8 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

33188/2022

Judge

Retief

The court found that the Minister's decision not to place Booysen on parole was rational and explicable. The Minister considered all relevant factors, including expert reports, recommendations, and the interests of the community. The risk factors for reoffending, particularly gang-related behaviour, remained unchanged and justified the decision. The Minister did not rely on the classified State Security Agency report for the impugned decision and properly applied his mind to the documentation before him. The court held that the procedural fairness challenge failed, as Booysen did not demonstr…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Parole Decision Review
• Procedural Fairness
• Rationality Of Administrative Action
• Risk Assessment
• Life Imprisonment

WBHO-Lubocon JV v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Another (005599/2022)

WBHO-Lubocon JV v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Another (005599/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1008 (8 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

005599/2022

Judge

N Manoim

Court upheld Eskom’s disqualification of WBHO’s tender bid for failing to submit a mandatory Appendix to Tender, and dismissed the review application.

• Tender Disqualification
• Mandatory Returnables
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Fairness In Procurement
• Rationality Of Administrative Action
• Tender-disqualification

Adams v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (28004/2016)

Adams v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (28004/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 801 (14 November 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29004/2016

Judge

P A van Niekerk

The High Court dismissed a review of a Road Accident Fund Appeal Tribunal decision that the applicant’s injuries were not seriously disfiguring.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Serious Injury Assessment
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review
• Procedural Fairness
• Rationality Of Administrative Action

Feltmann v Minister of Safety and Security Section Head: Medical Administration and Another (JR1487/2011)

Feltmann v Minister of Safety and Security Section Head: Medical Administration and Another (JR1487/2011) [2015] ZALCJHB 368 (1 October 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1487/2011

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a cause of action for review in his founding affidavit, as required in motion proceedings. Even if the court considered the arguments raised in reply and during oral argument, the decision of the SAPS to refuse ill-health retirement was rationally connected to the information before it, including both psychiatric and occupational therapy reports. The applicable policy did not require exclusive reliance on psychiatric assessments, and the decision to offer alternative employment with ongoing treatment was consistent with the policy's purpos…

Source excerpt

• Ill Health Retirement
• Legality Review
• Rationality Of Administrative Action
• Incapacity Leave Policy

Blue Crane Country Estate (Pty) Ltd v National Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others (3925/2014)

Blue Crane Country Estate (Pty) Ltd v National Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others (3925/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 149 (23 March 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3925/2014

Judge

C Pretorius

The High Court reviewed and set aside the Minister’s refusal to consent to subdivision of agricultural land, finding the decision irrational and procedurally unfair.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Subdivision Of Agricultural Land
• Municipal Land Use Powers
• Procedural Fairness
• Rationality Of Administrative Action
• Administrative-law

Pegma 27 Investment (Pty) Ltd and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Kwazulu-Natal and Others (LCC 07/2009)

Pegma 27 Investment (Pty) Ltd and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Kwazulu-Natal and Others (LCC 07/2009) [2010] ZALCC 27 (13 September 2010)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 07/2009

Judge

T.M Ncube

The Land Claims Court dismissed a review of the RLCC’s decision to accept and publish a community land claim affecting the applicants’ properties.

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Judicial Review
• Community Land Claims
• Rationality Of Administrative Action
• Judicial-review
• Restoration-of-land-rights

Suid-Afrikaanse Roofdiertelers Vereniging and Others v Minister van Omgewingsake en Toerimse (1900/2007)

Suid-Afrikaanse Roofdiertelers Vereniging and Others v Minister van Omgewingsake en Toerimse (1900/2007) [2009] ZAFSHC 91 (25 September 2009)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1900/2007

Judges

C.H.G. Van der Merwe, M.H. Rampai

The Free State High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospect of success on the proposed grounds and awarding costs.

• Judicial Review
• Rationality Of Administrative Action
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Order
• Leave-to-appeal
• Reasonable-prospect-of-success

Autopax Passenger Services (Pty) Limited v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (JR1595/04)

Autopax Passenger Services (Pty) Limited v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (JR1595/04) [2006] ZALC 82; (2006) 27 ILJ 2574 (LC) (21 August 2006)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

JR1595/04

Judge

D Van Zyl

The Labour Court dismissed a delayed review of an arbitration award, finding the 26-month delay inexcusable and the arbitrator’s sanction rational.

• Condonation For Delay
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Unfair Dismissal
• Abuse Of Process
• Rationality Of Administrative Action
• Labour-review-delay

MEC for Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs, Gauteng v Sasol Oil and Another (368/2004)

MEC for Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs, Gauteng v Sasol Oil and Another (368/2004) [2005] ZASCA 76; [2006] 2 All SA 17 (SCA); 2006 (5) SA 483 (SCA) (16 September 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

368/04

Judges

Howie, Cameron, Mlambo, Nkabinde, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Department and MEC were empowered under the Environment Conservation Act and relevant Ministerial notices to regulate the construction of filling stations as storage and handling facilities for hazardous substances. The guidelines issued by the Department were not ultra vires, as they were consistent with the statutory mandate and the principle of sustainable development. The decision to refuse authorisation was rational, as it considered environmental impacts, proximity to sensitive areas, and cumulative effects, and was not applied inflexibly. The r…

Source excerpt

• Environment Conservation Act
• Environmental Impact Assessment
• Ultra Vires Guidelines
• Judicial Review
• Rationality Of Administrative Action
• Internal Remedies Exhaustion