South Africa Case Law

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and Another v African Christian Democratic Party (869/2021)

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and Another v African Christian Democratic Party (869/2021) [2022] ZASCA 158 (21 November 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

869/2021

Judges

Petse, Makgoka, Plasket, Windell, Mali

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in granting a supervisory order without affording the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and the Minister of Health a hearing, despite their explicit opposition and request for oral argument. The order was not sought by any party, was not an issue in the pleadings, and was granted in the absence of any evidence to justify its necessity. The court emphasized that judicial power is limited by law and the Constitution, and that parties must be heard before orders affecting them are made. The grant of the supervisory order…

Source excerpt

• Supervisory Order
• Right To Be Heard
• Open Justice
• Separation Of Powers
• Remedial Powers
• Fair Hearing

Mphephu-Ramabulana and Another v Mphephu and Others (CCT 121/20)

Mphephu-Ramabulana and Another v Mphephu and Others (CCT 121/20) [2021] ZACC 43; 2022 (1) BCLR 20 (CC) (12 November 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 121/20

Judges

Khampepe, Jafta, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

Late leave to appeal was refused, but the cross-appeal succeeded on costs and the stay order in a royal succession dispute under PAJA and the Framework Act.

• Traditional Leadership Recognition
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Condonation
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation
• Remedial Powers

Mphatsoi v van Staden (LCC85/2019)

Mphatsoi v van Staden (LCC85/2019) [2020] ZALCC 33; 2021 (5) SA 267 (LCC) (20 March 2020)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC85/2019

Judges

Cowen, Yacoob

Section 17(4) of ESTA does not confer on magistrates' courts the power to invoke the civil process for contempt of court. The civil contempt process is not a rule of procedure but an inherent power of higher courts to regulate their own process and develop the common law. Magistrates' courts are limited to statutory powers and may not grant remedies available under the civil contempt process. Parties aggrieved by non-compliance with court orders in ESTA matters before magistrates' courts may pursue criminal contempt remedies under section 106 of the Magistrates Court Act or approach the Land…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Remedial Powers
• Constitutional Interpretation

S v Neotel (Pty) Ltd (EQ2/2015)

S v Neotel (Pty) Ltd (EQ2/2015) [2018] ZAEQC 1; 2019 (1) SA 622 (GJ) (31 July 2018)

Court

Equality Court

Case number

EQ2/2015

Judge

Spilg

The Equality Court dismissed a jurisdictional special plea, holding the complaint was not confined to an employment policy or practice under the Employment Equity Act.

• Equality Court Jurisdiction
• Employment Equity Act Interpretation
• Unfair Discrimination
• Gender Based Violence
• Access To Justice
• Remedial Powers

Abdurahman v Public Health And Social Development Bargaining Council and Others (C25/14)

Abdurahman v Public Health And Social Development Bargaining Council and Others (C25/14) [2015] ZALCCT 34 (30 April 2015)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C25/14

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The Labour Court held that the failure to promote the applicant was an unfair labour practice, reviewed the award, and ordered protected promotion and compensation.

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Promotion
• Protected Promotion
• Remedial Powers
• Compensation
• Unfair-labour-practice

Minister of Safety and Security v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (P 186/08, P 184/08)

Minister of Safety and Security v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (P 186/08, P 184/08) [2010] ZALC 63; [2010] 9 BLLR 965 (LC) ; (2010) 31 ILJ 2680 (LC) (23 March 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

P 186/08, P 184/08

Judge

Lagrange

The arbitrator acted within his statutory powers under section 193(4) of the LRA by awarding a personal promotion to Arends as a remedy for the unfair labour practice. The award did not usurp the National Commissioner's prerogative, as it did not interfere with the appointment of the fourth respondent to the post but provided an equitable remedy for the prejudice suffered by Arends. The facts distinguished this case from Dunn and KwaDukuza, as the evidence showed Arends would have been appointed but for the procedural irregularities. The LRA's remedial provisions prevail over conflicting SAPS…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Promotion Dispute
• Protected Promotion
• Arbitration Award
• Remedial Powers
• Compensation

Manong & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Department of Roads & Transport, Eastern Cape Province and Another (331/08)

Manong & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Department of Roads & Transport, Eastern Cape Province and Another (331/08) [2009] ZASCA 59; 2009 (6) SA 574 (SCA) ; [2009] 4 All SA 1 (SCA) (29 May 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

331/08

Judges

Farlam, Nugent, Van Heerden, Mlambo, Kroon

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the equality court, as established by the Equality Act, is a statutory court with powers confined to those granted by the Act. It does not possess the original jurisdiction of the High Court to review administrative action under PAJA or to adjudicate constitutional matters generally. However, the equality court is empowered to determine whether unfair discrimination has occurred and to grant appropriate relief under section 21 of the Equality Act, including declaratory orders, interdicts, and audits. The court found that the relief sought by the appellant…

Source excerpt

• Equality Court Jurisdiction
• Unfair Discrimination
• Public Procurement
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Constitutional Rights
• Remedial Powers