South Africa Case Law

Van till Outdoor (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2024/032964)

Van till Outdoor (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2024/032964) [2025] ZAGPJHC 774 (8 August 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/032964

Judge

Snyman AJ

The High Court held that Johannesburg’s Outdoor Advertising By-Laws do not authorise JMPD impoundments, and granted declaratory and interdictory relief.

• Municipal By Laws Enforcement
• Unlawful Impoundment
• Declaratory Relief
• Interdictory Relief
• Doctrine Of Ripeness
• Interpretation Of By Laws

Siemans Energy (Pty) Ltd and Others v City of Cape Town and Others (19749/2022)

Siemans Energy (Pty) Ltd and Others v City of Cape Town and Others (19749/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 193 (25 July 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19749/2022

Judge

Andrews

The High Court dismissed Siemens Energy’s review of the City of Cape Town’s abuse finding and suspended procurement restriction under the SCM policy.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Supply Chain Management
• Public Procurement
• Strict Liability In Procurement
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Declaration Of Interest

Radebe v Road Accident Fund (053998/2023; 074803/2023)

Radebe v Road Accident Fund (053998/2023; 074803/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 25 (1 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

053998/2023; 074803/2023

Judge

K Strydom

High Court dismissed two RAF declaratory applications, holding that timeous section 24(5) objections are administrative action and that the relief sought was premature.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Declaratory Relief
• Administrative Action
• Procedural Compliance
• Substantial Compliance
• Road-accident-fund

Korabie v Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector, including Organs of State and Others (9946/2022)

Korabie v Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector, including Organs of State and Others (9946/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 187; [2022] 4 All SA 811 (WCC) (20 September 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9946/2022

Judges

M J Dolamo, H Slingers

The court held that the recommendations of the State Capture Commission did not constitute administrative action as defined by PAJA because they lacked direct, external legal effect and were not final decisions adversely affecting the applicant's rights. The recommendations were merely suggestions for further investigation and possible prosecution, which may or may not be acted upon. The application was also found not to be urgent, as the applicant failed to provide concrete evidence of ongoing harm or inability to obtain redress in due course. Furthermore, the matter was not ripe for adjudic…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Administrative Action Definition
• Ripeness
• Non Joinder
• Fiduciary Duties
• Recommendations By Commissions

Robertson v National Commissioner of the South African Police Service and Others (47373/2019)

Robertson v National Commissioner of the South African Police Service and Others (47373/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 477 (29 July 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

47373/2019

Judge

M.M.D. Lenyai

The court dismissed Robertson’s main review as premature, but granted the state’s counter-review and set aside unlawful firearm-licensing decisions.

• Firearms Control Act
• Legitimate Expectation
• Ripeness
• Separation Of Powers
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Rectification Of Unlawful Decision

Cart Blanche Marketing CC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (26244/2015)

Cart Blanche Marketing CC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (26244/2015) [2020] ZAGPJHC 316 (11 December 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26244/2015

Judge

I Opperman

Leave to appeal was refused in a tax review matter. The court held the applicants had not shown reasonable prospects of success on reviewability or lawfulness.

• Judicial Review Of Tax Decisions
• Principle Of Legality
• Lawfulness Of Administrative Action
• Ripeness
• Rationality Review
• Tax-law

Carte Blanche Marketing CC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (26244/2015)

Carte Blanche Marketing CC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (26244/2015) [2020] ZAGPJHC 202; [2020] 4 All SA 434 (GJ); 2020 (6) SA 463 (GJ); 83 SATC 89 (31 August 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26244/2015

Judge

I Opperman

The High Court held that SARS’s selection of the applicants for audit was not ripe for legality review and, in any event, was rationally based on risk indicators.

• Tax Administration Act
• Risk Assessment Audit
• Principle Of Legality
• Subsidiarity
• Ripeness
• Judicial Review

Normandien Farms (Pty) Limited v South African Agency for Promotion of Petroleum Exportation and Exploitation (SOC) Limited and Others (CCT195/19)

Normandien Farms (Pty) Limited v South African Agency for Promotion of Petroleum Exportation and Exploitation (SOC) Limited and Others (CCT195/19) [2020] ZACC 5; 2020 (6) BCLR 748 (CC); 2020 (4) SA 409 (CC) (24 March 2020)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 195/19

Judges

Khampepe, Jafta, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, Victor

The Constitutional Court held that the matter was moot because Rhino Oil and Gas had withdrawn its application for an exploration right, and no live controversy remained. The Court found that no practical effect would result from granting leave to appeal, as the relief sought was no longer available. The interests of justice did not warrant hearing the matter, as the Supreme Court of Appeal did not decide the merits and its judgment did not undermine the importance of public participation in exploration right applications. The Court further found that Normandien Farms' conduct in persisting w…

Source excerpt

• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act
• Exploration Rights
• Public Participation
• Mootness
• Punitive Costs
• Ripeness

Rhino Oil and Gas Exploration SA (Pty) Limited v Normandien Farms (Pty) Limited and Another (100/2018)

Rhino Oil and Gas Exploration SA (Pty) Limited v Normandien Farms (Pty) Limited and Another (100/2018) [2019] ZASCA 88; 2019 (6) SA 400 (SCA) (31 May 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

100/2018

Judges

Ponnan, Mbha, Mathopo, Van der Merwe, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Normandien Farms had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the procedural steps taken by PASA and Rhino Oil and Gas in the application process for a petroleum exploration right. The court found that the process was not yet final, no rights had been adversely affected, and the matter was not ripe for adjudication. As a general rule, judicial review is not available for non-final exercises of public power unless prejudice has resulted. The relief granted by the court below was therefore premature and unwarranted. The appeal was upheld, and the applicati…

Source excerpt

• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act
• Ripeness
• Prejudice In Review
• Environmental Authorisation
• Public Power Exercise

Netshimbupfe and Another v Carthcart and Others (563/2017)

Netshimbupfe and Another v Carthcart and Others (563/2017) [2018] ZASCA 98; [2018] 3 All SA 397 (SCA) (4 June 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

563/2017

Judges

Seriti, Dambuza, Mathopo, Van der Merwe, Mothle

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the review application was premature because the Premier had not yet made a definitive decision regarding the recognition of the senior traditional leader as required by s 12(2) of the Limpopo Act. The statutory framework expects parties to exhaust internal remedies and statutory processes, including consultation with customary institutions, before seeking judicial intervention. The court found that the High Court and the full court erred by making findings on the merits and usurping the Premier's executive functions. The matter was not ripe for adjudicat…

Source excerpt

• Customary Leadership Succession
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Ripeness
• Internal Remedies
• Traditional Leadership Recognition