Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Zuma and Another v South African Broaddcasting Corporation and Others (2024/077748) [2025] ZAGPJHC 79 (31 January 2025)
The High Court dismissed a challenge to the SABC’s use of “Government of National Unity,” holding that the dispute was political, not constitutional.
Takata South Africa (Pty) Limited v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (252/CAC/Feb24) [2025] ZACAC 1 (16 January 2025)
The court dismissed Takata SA’s appeal and review against the Tribunal’s dismissal of exceptions, holding the interlocutory ruling was not appealable and the review grounds duplicated the appeal.
Zuma and Another v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others (077748/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 903 (30 August 2024)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish sufficient urgency to warrant hearing the matter on the urgent roll. While the applicants alleged ongoing constitutional violations by the SABC, the court held that the urgency was not adequately substantiated, particularly given the applicants' own indication that the matter was of such importance as to merit a special allocation to a Full Court. The court also noted procedural shortcomings, including the absence of a Rule 16A notice, which is necessary for constitutional matters potentially affecting third parties. The SABC's delays an…
Source excerpt
Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy v Becker and Others (1199/23) [2024] ZASCA 106; [2024] 9 BLLR 893 (SCA) (28 June 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Minister's decision to discharge Mr Becker as director of the National Nuclear Regulator Board was unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid. The Minister wrongly conflated the Board's statutory duty to ensure nuclear safety with advocacy for nuclear activities and erroneously believed that opposition to nuclear activities constituted misconduct. The Minister's reasoning was arbitrary and based on incorrect facts, including unfounded allegations of conflict of interest and anticipated future misconduct. The process was procedurally unfair, as the Minis…
Source excerpt
Mpumalanga Growth Agency v South African Human Rights Commission and Others (1461/2022) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 39 (18 July 2023)
The court held that the findings and directives issued by the South African Human Rights Commission following its investigation into the complaint regarding eviction did not constitute administrative action as defined in section 1 of PAJA. Although the Commission is an organ of state exercising public power, its investigative findings and directives are not definitive, do not adversely affect the applicant's rights, and lack direct, external legal effect. The Commission's role is to investigate and make recommendations, not to issue binding decisions. As such, the court's review jurisdiction…
Source excerpt
Afriforum v South African Human Rights Commission and Others (14370/2019 ; 31328/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 807; 2023 (6) SA 188 (GJ) (14 July 2023)
The South African Human Rights Commission is a creature of statute and its powers are strictly circumscribed by the South African Human Rights Commission Act 40 of 2013. Section 13(3) of the Act empowers the Commission to investigate alleged violations of human rights and to form an opinion on whether there is substance to a complaint, for the purpose of deciding whether to assist in bringing proceedings before a competent court. The Commission is not empowered to make definitive decisions on whether a contravention of section 10 of PEPUDA has occurred, nor to exonerate alleged violators. Any…
Source excerpt
Mombeeg (PTY) Limited v Eskom Rotek Industries SOC Limited (2021/15418) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1014 (15 December 2022)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the respondent took any reviewable administrative decision to disqualify its bid or to award the tender to the applicant. The evidence showed that the respondent was still evaluating the tender and had not issued any notice of award or disqualification. The applicant's failure to submit a Generic Scorecard for B-BBEE compliance was a legitimate issue for clarification and did not amount to an error of law or fact. The applicant's refusal to make representations under Regulation 14 of the PPPF Regulations constituted repudiation of th…
Source excerpt
L'Avenir Wine Estate (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (16112/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 28; 84 SATC 295 (11 March 2022)
The High Court dismissed L’Avenir Wine Estate’s application to compel SARS to assess a disputed tax period, finding the papers were not properly framed for review relief.
Prudential Authority of the South African Reserve Bank v Msiza and Another (78587/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 624 (21 September 2021)
The High Court granted leave to appeal in a case about procedural fairness in an FSR Act investigation and whether an implicated person had a right to be heard.
Road Accident Fund v Skosana (A4/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 342 (29 July 2020)
The court held that the Fund had made a valid election under Regulation 3(3)(dA) by notifying the respondent's attorneys of its intention to appoint its own medical experts for a further assessment. The respondent's review application was therefore premised on an incorrect assumption. The relief sought by the respondent could not have been granted, and the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs applied. The court found no good grounds to depart from this rule, as the Fund's conduct did not warrant an adverse costs order. The costs order made by the court a quo was set asi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
