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
Marogoa v Malgas and Others (2155/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 105 (18 April 2024)
The court rescinded an order against a non-decision-maker who was wrongly compelled to produce a Rule 53 record in review proceedings.
Van Der Heever v Matjhabeng Local Municipality (4194/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 276 (14 July 2023)
The court found that the applicant's request for the respondent to file the record of the decision was not supported by law, as the respondent credibly asserted that no such record exists due to the council's lack of consideration of the agreement. The application was not one to compel discovery, and even if it were, discovery in motion proceedings is only granted in exceptional circumstances and typically after all affidavits have been filed. Regulation 2(3) of the Administrative Review Rules under PAJA does not apply to self-review applications by organs of state. The absence of a record is…
Source excerpt
Ace Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd v Road Traffic Management Corporation and Others (8839/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 897 (16 November 2022)
The High Court granted leave to amend a notice of motion to add review relief about an administrative vehicle mark, with costs against the applicant.
Mamadi and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others (CCT 176/21) [2022] ZACC 26; 2023 (6) BCLR 733 (CC); 2024 (1) SA 1 (CC) (6 July 2022)
The Constitutional Court held that a review under rule 53 may not be dismissed solely because factual disputes were foreseeable; referral to trial was appropriate.
Shabangu and Others v S (R113/19) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 34 (10 June 2020)
Application for leave to appeal dismissed where the court found no reasonable prospects of success and rejected formal objections about locus standi and review procedure.
IFJ Properties (Pty) Ltd v Brown and Others (32592/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 755 (31 August 2015)
The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the supplementary affidavit, namely the unavailability of senior counsel due to other professional commitments. The court noted that the Sixth and Seventh Respondents themselves were substantially late in filing the record, and that no prejudice was alleged or suffered by any respondent as a result of the applicant's delay. Although the applicant did not explicitly address prospects of success in the condonation application, the supplementary affidavit in the court file demonstrated pri…
Source excerpt
Explore more
