South Africa Case Law

Segalo v Botha N.O. and Others; Botha N.O. and Another v Segalo and Others (2020/11582; 2019/44572)

Segalo v Botha N.O. and Others; Botha N.O. and Another v Segalo and Others (2020/11582; 2019/44572) [2021] ZAGPJHC 770 (6 December 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/11582; 2019/44572

Judge

K.E. Matojane

The court held that section 386 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 is not unconstitutional and invalid for failing to provide judicial oversight over the sale of residential immovable property owned by liquidated companies. The constitutional protections under sections 26 and 34 do not extend to juristic persons, and the sale of company-owned property does not implicate the right to housing or access to courts for natural persons residing in such property. The court distinguished the present facts from cases such as Lesapo, Zondi, and Jaftha, which dealt with self-help and deprivation of housing…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Oversight
• Right Of Access To Courts
• Right To Housing
• Liquidation Of Companies
• Sale Of Residential Property
• Rule 46a Application

Sogoni v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape Province (828/2017)

Sogoni v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape Province (828/2017) [2020] ZAECBHC 35 (29 April 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

828/2017

Judge

Laing

The court found that the applicant was not aware of the legal requirements or the factual basis for a claim until he received the post-mortem report in October 2017. The applicant's explanation for the delay was accepted as reasonable given his circumstances as a rural, unsophisticated person dealing with bereavement and caring for twins. The respondent's claim of unreasonable prejudice was rejected, as it failed to show why it could not trace relevant medical staff. The court held that the applicant met all three requirements under section 3(4)(b) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Agai…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Prescription
• Medical Negligence
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State Act
• Right Of Access To Courts

Legal Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (CCT188/14)

Legal Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (CCT188/14) [2015] ZACC 28; 2015 (6) SA 494 (CC); 2015 (11) BCLR 1346 (CC) (22 September 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 188/14

Judges

Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Molemela AJ, Nkabinde J, Theron AJ, Tshiqi AJ

The Constitutional Court dismissed Legal Aid South Africa’s moot appeal over Marikana funding, holding section 34 does not generally require state-funded representation before commissions of inquiry.

• Right Of Access To Courts
• State Funded Legal Representation
• Mootness
• Commission Of Inquiry
• Equality Before The Law
• Rationality Review

Mdodana v Premier of the Eastern Cape and Others (1648/10)

Mdodana v Premier of the Eastern Cape and Others (1648/10) [2013] ZAECGHC 66 (13 June 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1648/10

Judge

J.E Smith

The court found that sections 12, 23, 34, 35, 36 and 63 to 70 of the Pounds Ordinance collectively establish a scheme that permits the impoundment and sale of livestock without judicial supervision, resulting in arbitrary deprivation of property and unfair discrimination against the landless. The impugned provisions are overbroad and disproportionate, failing to meet constitutional standards for limitation of rights. Section 14 can be saved by reading in a requirement for reasonable diligence in notifying owners, but the other provisions cannot be cured by reading in or severance without enga…

Source excerpt

• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property
• Right To Fair Administrative Action
• Right Of Access To Courts
• Unfair Discrimination
• Judicial Supervision Of Executive Action
• Sale In Execution

Meth v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (1848/2012)

Meth v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (1848/2012) [2012] ZAECPEHC 93 (18 December 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1848/2012

Judge

J M Roberson

The court found that the applicant is indigent and unable to furnish security for costs, and that denying him relief would terminate his appeal and infringe his right of access to courts. There is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding whether the penalties imposed were unlawful due to the absence of a disciplinary enquiry and whether those penalties exceeded the statutory limits prescribed by section 24 of the Correctional Services Act. The respondents' interpretation of section 24, which permits sanctions beyond those listed, is incorrect and raises serious concerns about the…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Disciplinary Procedure In Correctional Services
• Unlawful Penalties
• Right Of Access To Courts

Ssemakula and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (4139/11)

Ssemakula and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (4139/11) [2012] ZAWCHC 398 (5 March 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4139/11

Judge

Dolamo

The court found that the Respondents' refusal to accept asylum applications and issue temporary asylum seeker permits unless the applicant possessed an asylum transit permit was inconsistent with the Constitution and the Refugees Act. The Respondents failed to justify the policy or practice, and their denial was contradicted by the evidence presented by the Applicants. The court held that the Respondents' conduct unlawfully prevented asylum seekers from exercising their constitutional and statutory rights, exposed them to risk of arrest and deportation, and was invalid. The Respondents were o…

Source excerpt

• Refugees Act
• Immigration Act
• Right Of Access To Courts
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Administrative Action

Strategic Liquor Services v Mvumbi NO and Others (CCT 33/09)

Strategic Liquor Services v Mvumbi NO and Others (CCT 33/09) [2009] ZACC 17; (2009) 30 ILJ 1526 (CC); 2010 (2) SA 92 (CC) ; 2009 (10) BCLR 1046 (CC) ; [2009] 9 BLLR 847 (CC) (18 June 2009)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 33/09

Judges

Langa, Moseneke, Cameron, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, O'Regan, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that the employer's application for leave to appeal was without merit. The uncontested evidence established that Mr Redgard's work environment had become intolerable, and the alternative to resignation was a sham. The test for constructive dismissal does not require that the employee have no choice but to resign, only that the employer made continued employment intolerable. The CCMA's finding of constructive dismissal was justified, and there was no basis to disturb it. The Court further condemned the severe delays and the Labour Court's failure to provide writte…

Source excerpt

• Constructive Dismissal
• Unfair Dismissal
• Right Of Access To Courts
• Judicial Reasoning
• Review Of Arbitration Awards

Skosana and Others v Legal Aid Board (Mafikeng) and Another (2282/2007)

Skosana and Others v Legal Aid Board (Mafikeng) and Another (2282/2007) [2008] ZANWHC 22 (31 July 2008)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

2282/2007

Judge

R D Hendricks

Court dealt with requests for legal aid and trial records for inmates seeking leave to appeal, holding the registrar had no duty to provide records at that stage.

• Right Of Access To Courts
• Legal Aid
• Fair Trial Rights
• Transcription Of Records
• Legal-aid
• Access-to-courts

Engelbrecht v Road Accident Fund and Another (CCT57/06)

Engelbrecht v Road Accident Fund and Another (CCT57/06) [2007] ZACC 1; 2007 (6) SA 96 (CC); 2007 (5) BCLR 457 (CC) (6 March 2007)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT57/06

Judges

Kondile AJ, Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Van Heerden AJ, Van der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J

Regulation 2(1)(c) of the Road Accident Fund Act regulations, which requires a claimant in a hit-and-run case to submit an affidavit to the police within 14 days after being in a position to do so, constitutes a limitation of the right of access to courts protected by section 34 of the Constitution. The 14-day period is unreasonably short and unfair, especially for the majority of claimants who are unlikely to be aware of the regulation. The double qualification ('if reasonably possible' and 'in a position to do so') does not sufficiently mitigate the harshness of the time limit. The responde…

Source excerpt

• Right Of Access To Courts
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Delegated Legislation
• Limitation Of Rights
• Regulation Invalidity

S v O'Connell and Others (P15/2005, P71/2005, P34/2006, P65/2006)

S v O'Connell and Others (P15/2005, P71/2005, P34/2006, P65/2006) [2006] ZAWCHC 63; [2007] 2 All SA 293 (C); 2007 (5) BCLR 556 (C) (6 November 2006)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

P15/2005, P71/2005, P34/2006, P65/2006

Judges

Blignault, Allie

The court held that sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act, as amended in 2004, are inconsistent with the Constitution. The procedure for leave to appeal unduly restricts the right of access to courts and a fair trial, particularly for unrepresented accused. The consideration of petitions by a single judge and the lack of guaranteed access to the full record undermine the adequacy of reappraisal and informed decision-making. The court found that these defects are fundamental and cannot be justified by resource constraints or the need to screen unmeritorious appeals. Accordingly,…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Right Of Access To Courts
• Fair Trial Rights
• Legal Aid
• Petition Procedure
• Constitutional Invalidity