South Africa Case Law

Prince Mbonisi Bekithemba Ka Bhekuzulu and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (19891/2022; 38670/2022)

Prince Mbonisi Bekithemba Ka Bhekuzulu and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (19891/2022; 38670/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 42 (25 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19891/2022; 38670/2022

Judge

N Davis

The High Court granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal over a Zulu kingship dispute, sending the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

• Traditional Leadership Act
• Customary Succession
• Review Of Executive Action
• Res Judicata
• Superior Courts Act
• Costs Orders

Pilane and Others v Premier of the North West Province and Others - Application for Leave to Appeal (UM127/2020)

Pilane and Others v Premier of the North West Province and Others - Application for Leave to Appeal (UM127/2020) [2023] ZANWHC 231 (14 December 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM127/2020

Judge

FMM Reid

The court found that the longstanding and complex nature of the chieftaincy dispute among the Bakgatla ba Kgafela, the constitutional and legislative issues raised, and the need for legal certainty justified granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The grounds advanced by the applicants, including the interpretation of the Premier's executive functions and the distinction between Kgosi and Interim Kgosi, were considered to raise substantial points of law and matters of public and national interest. The court held that the application for leave to appeal displayed more than a r…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Executive Action
• Traditional Leadership Disputes
• Reasonable Prospects Of Success
• Leave To Appeal Test
• Section 140 Constitution
• Commission Of Inquiry

Abaqulusi Local Municipality and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (3003/2022P)

Abaqulusi Local Municipality and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (3003/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 97 (15 September 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

3003/2022P

Judge

R Singh

The High Court set aside KwaZulu-Natal’s decision to retain a section 139 intervention in Abaqulusi Municipality, finding it unconstitutional, invalid, and not justly suspendable.

• Provincial Intervention
• Principle Of Legality
• Municipal Autonomy
• Section 139 Intervention
• Review Of Executive Action
• Section-139-intervention

Mdletshe v Minister of Defence and Another (57651/2011)

Mdletshe v Minister of Defence and Another (57651/2011) [2016] ZAGPPHC 24 (25 January 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

57651/2011

Judge

M.F Kganyago

The court found that the respondents failed to show good cause for not renewing the applicant's contract, especially given that previous disciplinary offences had not prevented renewal in the past and that other SANDF members with worse records were retained. The applicant's expectation of renewal was reasonable and legitimate. The respondents did not follow their own policy governing the non-renewal of fixed term contracts, and the procedure was unfair. Consequently, the respondents acted unlawfully, and their decision was reviewed and set aside. The applicant was entitled to a new contract…

Source excerpt

• Legitimate Expectation
• Principle Of Legality
• Fixed Term Contracts
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Review Of Executive Action

Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (20210/11)

Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (20210/11) [2012] ZAGPPHC 186 (3 September 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20210/11

Judge

E Bertelsmann

The court held that the President's determination of a 5% salary increase for Regional Magistrates and Regional Court Presidents constituted executive action, not administrative action, and was therefore not reviewable under PAJA. However, executive actions remain subject to review on the principle of legality. The President failed to comply with statutory requirements to consider the specific role, status, duties, and responsibilities of Regional Magistrates before making the determination. The process adopted was irrational and unlawful as it did not differentiate between categories of publ…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Independence
• Remuneration Of Public Office Bearers
• Principle Of Legality
• Review Of Executive Action
• Procedural Fairness

Londoloza Forestry Consortium (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Forestry Company Limited and Others (28738/2006)

Londoloza Forestry Consortium (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Forestry Company Limited and Others (28738/2006) [2008] ZAGPHC 195 (12 May 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

28738/2006

Judge

B R Du Plessis

The court found that the applicants failed to establish, even on a prima facie basis, any contractual right to be negotiated with as reserve bidder. The terms of the ITO and correspondence made it clear that participation in the process did not create any rights or obligations to negotiate. The applicants' bid had expired, and no consensus was reached for further extension. The decision to terminate the privatisation process was a policy decision taken by the Minister of Public Enterprises in his executive capacity, not administrative action under PAJA, and was therefore not reviewable under…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Privatisation Process
• Legitimate Expectation
• Contractual Obligation
• Policy Decision
• Review Of Executive Action

Van Zyl and Others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (20320/02)

Van Zyl and Others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (20320/02) [2005] ZAGPHC 70; [2005] 4 All SA 96 (T); 2005 (11) BCLR 1106 (T) (20 July 2005)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

20320/02

Judge

E M Patel

The court held that diplomatic protection is a discretionary right of the State under international law and not an enforceable right of individuals or companies. The applicants, being companies incorporated in Lesotho, are not South African nationals for purposes of diplomatic protection, and their shareholders do not acquire such rights by virtue of shareholding. The applicants failed to exhaust local remedies in Lesotho, and no international delict was established. The decisions of the respondents refusing diplomatic protection were informed by policy considerations and were neither arbitra…

Source excerpt

• Diplomatic Protection
• Review Of Executive Action
• Expropriation Without Compensation
• Legitimate Expectation
• Exhaustion Of Local Remedies
• International Minimum Standard