Sitrusrand Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (097109/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 758 (22 July 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
097109/2023
Judge
Kekana
Review dismissed: the court held that the Department properly refused a corporate visa recommendation because local skills were available and the process was fair.
Lewray Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v City of Johannesburg and Another (11812/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 708 (21 July 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
11812/2022
Judge
M P Motha
The court found that the City of Johannesburg's creation of a non-sectional title category for refuse tariffs was not authorized by the Municipal Systems Act or the City's Tariff Determination By-laws. The enabling provisions require that tariff differentiation be based on delineated categories specified in the by-laws and policies, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and others, but do not recognize a distinction between sectional and non-sectional title properties. The imposition of the non-sectional title tariff was therefore ultra vires and irrational, as it introduced a category…
National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another v Kruger (D10552/2023) [2025] ZAKZDHC 44 (18 July 2025)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
D10552/2023
Judge
Reddi AJ
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a ruling setting aside POCA prosecution authorisation, finding no reasonable prospect of success.
Labour Party of South Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (2025/092790) [2025] ZAGPPHC 743 (17 July 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
2025/092790
Judge
de Vos
The Court found that the President's constitutional duty to promote national unity under section 83(c) inherently includes the power to initiate processes such as the National Dialogue. The Labour Party failed to establish a prima facie right, as the President's actions were rationally linked to the constitutional objective of fostering national unity. There was no evidence of unlawful expenditure or exclusion from the process, and the R700 million figure was not final nor proven to breach public finance laws. The alleged harms were either speculative, not irreparable, or capable of redress t…
Maano Water (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (383/24) [2025] ZASCA 87 (12 June 2025)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
383/24
Judges
Matojane, Keightley, Phatshoane
The Court held that Eskom's decision to cancel the tender was an executive action, not administrative action, and thus not reviewable under PAJA but under the principle of legality. The tender documents expressly reserved Eskom's right to cancel the tender at any time prior to contract formation. Maano did not have an enforceable right to compel Eskom to continue negotiations until deadlock, as the relevant contractual clause was too vague and lacked a deadlock-breaking mechanism. The cancellation was rationally connected to Eskom's need to protect public funds in light of significant and unf…
Rautenbach and Others v Governing Body of die Hoerskool DF Malan and Another (073/2024) [2025] ZASCA 78 (4 June 2025)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
073/2024
Judges
Mokgohloa, Mbatha, Weiner, Smith, Modiba
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the governing body of a public school has implied statutory power under the Schools Act to change the school's name, as part of its governance functions and fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the school and its stakeholders. The consultative process adopted was comprehensive, rational, and followed expert advice, ensuring broad stakeholder participation and fair opportunity for input. The decision to change the school's name was rationally connected to the information before the governing body and aligned with the school's values of inclusivit…
Mambafula v Alfred Nzo District Municipality (2715/2024) [2025] ZAECMHC 45 (29 May 2025)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Case number
2715/2024
Judge
Nkele
The court found that the respondent's decision not to appoint the applicant and to re-advertise the post was an administrative action as defined under PAJA, as it was taken by an organ of state exercising public power in terms of section 56 of the Municipal Systems Act and had a direct, external legal effect on the applicant's rights. The respondent failed to provide any factual or legal basis for its decision, did not disclose or investigate the alleged irregularities, and acted on unsubstantiated information. The council did not perform a legislative or executive function but implemented le…
Minister of Human Settlements, Sanitation and Water v Tonise and Others (CA 199/2023) [2025] ZAECMKHC 6 (20 January 2025)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Case number
CA 199/2023
Judges
Hartle, Gqamana, Bands
The court held that the Minister's decision to dissolve the Amatola Water Board and terminate the appointments of its members constituted executive action, not administrative action, following the principles established in Motau. However, the exercise of executive power remains subject to the principle of legality and must be rationally connected to its purpose. The evidence did not establish that the board was dysfunctional or unable to fulfil its statutory mandate; the Minister failed to provide adequate reasons or particulars for his decision, and acted on outdated and untested allegations…
Sthathu Funding (Pty) Ltd v Amathole District Municipality and Others (5049/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 128 (27 November 2024)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Case number
5049/2024
Judge
Laing
The court found that the first respondent's inclusion and weighting of specific goals in the second tender was rationally connected to the purpose contemplated under section 217(2) of the Constitution, amplified in the PPPFA and its regulations, and expressed in the supply chain management policy. The applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie right to just administrative action or to a procurement process that does not comply with constitutional and legislative requirements. The court was not satisfied that irreparable harm would result from allowing the procurement process to proceed, as…
