South Africa Case Law

Security Industry Alliance v Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others (479/13)

Security Industry Alliance v Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others (479/13) [2014] ZASCA 99; 2015 (1) SA 169 (SCA); [2014] 4 All SA 21 (SCA) (15 August 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

479/13

Judges

Mpati, Mhlantla, Leach, Hancke, Swain

The Authority and Minister acted under a material error of law by incorrectly believing that the legislation did not permit differentiation between small and large security service providers when setting regulatory fees. This error directly influenced the decision to impose uniform fees, despite stakeholder submissions highlighting the adverse impact on smaller businesses. The Authority failed to engage meaningfully with stakeholders and did not exhaust all avenues for an equitable fee structure, resulting in procedural unfairness. The Minister was misinformed both on the law and the facts, c…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Error Of Law
• Consultation Requirements
• Regulatory Fees

Maize Board v Epol (Pty) Ltd (9874/2007)

Maize Board v Epol (Pty) Ltd (9874/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 99; 2009 (3) SA 110 (D); 71 SATC 236 (18 December 2008)

Court

High Courts - Kwazulu Natal

Case number

9874/2007

Judge

Tshabalala JP

The court held that maize levy claims were not “taxation” under the Prescription Act, so the plaintiff’s claim had prescribed after three years.

• Prescription Act
• Levies Under Marketing Act
• Definition Of Taxation
• Regulatory Fees
• Public Purpose Requirement
• Prescription

Director-General: Department of Home Affairs and Another v Mavericks Revue CC (576/06)

Director-General: Department of Home Affairs and Another v Mavericks Revue CC (576/06) [2007] ZASCA 149; [2007] SCA 149 (RSA); [2008] 1 All SA 435 (SCA); 2008 (2) SA 418 (SCA) (28 November 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

576/06

Judges

Howie, Nugent, Ponnan, Mlambo, Hurt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the work permit envisaged by regulation 18(6) for corporate workers is not a work permit contemplated by section 19 of the Immigration Act. The criteria and requirements for corporate permits differ from those for general work permits under section 19, and the regulations clearly distinguish between the two categories. Therefore, no fee stipulated for section 19 work permits is payable for corporate worker permits. Furthermore, the discretion to require a repatriation deposit must be exercised by the delegated official and not simply implemented as a blan…

Source excerpt

• Immigration Permits
• Administrative Discretion
• Judicial Review
• Regulatory Fees