South Africa Case Law

Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service v Rappa Resources (Pty) Ltd (2021/22981)

Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service v Rappa Resources (Pty) Ltd (2021/22981) [2021] ZAGPJHC 623 (8 November 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/22981

Judge

EF Dippenaar

The High Court granted leave to appeal against an interlocutory order compelling production of the record, holding that jurisdiction under section 105 had to be decided first.

• Tax Administration Act
• Leave To Appeal
• Jurisdiction
• Production Of Record
• Rule 53 Application
• Leave-to-appeal

Zamani Marketing and Management Consultants Proprietary Limited and Another v HCI Invest 15 Holdco Proprietary Limited and Others (32026/2019)

Zamani Marketing and Management Consultants Proprietary Limited and Another v HCI Invest 15 Holdco Proprietary Limited and Others (32026/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 5; 2021 (5) SA 315 (GJ) (11 February 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

32026/2019

Judge

Unterhalter

Rule 53 is applicable to reviews of arbitration awards under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, and applicants may invoke it to obtain the record of proceedings. However, the manuscript notes of arbitrators do not form part of the record for purposes of Rule 53. The notes are private, provisional, and not necessarily related to the reasons for the award, which are provided in writing and signed by the arbitrators. Disclosure of such notes would undermine the freedom and integrity of the adjudicative process. The court found that systemic harm to the adjudicative function outweighs any potenti…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Review
• Rule 53 Application
• Record Of Proceedings
• Deliberations And Notes
• Disclosure Obligation

Mogaecho v Regional Court Magistrate and Another (A162/2016)

Mogaecho v Regional Court Magistrate and Another (A162/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 176 (2 November 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A162/2016

Judges

Jordaan, Van Schalkwyk

The High Court dismissed a review of a magistrates’ court conviction and sentence, rejecting claims of prosecutorial irregularity, judicial bias, and prejudicial separation of trials.

• Review Of Magistrates Court Proceedings
• Bias Of Judicial Officer
• Separation Of Trials
• Gross Irregularity
• Rule 53 Application
• Review-of-magistrates-court-proceedings

President of the Republic of SA v Democratic Alliance and Others (24396/2017)

President of the Republic of SA v Democratic Alliance and Others (24396/2017) [2017] ZAGPJHC 168 (2 June 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

24396/2017

Judge

Vally

The court held that Rule 53 applies to the review of executive decisions, including those made by the President, as the Constitution brings such decisions within judicial scrutiny for rationality. The President's argument that the order trespasses on Parliament's domain was rejected, as the Constitution is supreme and no official or institution is immune from judicial review. The court found no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion on the applicability of Rule 53. However, due to the significant public interest and the far-reaching implications of the order…

Source excerpt

• Executive Powers
• Rationality Review
• Rule 53 Application
• Separation Of Powers
• Judicial Review

VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Finance Mr P J Gordhan and Others (24799/2013)

VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Finance Mr P J Gordhan and Others (24799/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 147 (20 April 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24799/2013

Judge

M W Msimeki

The High Court reviewed and set aside a five-year supplier ban and restricted-supplier listing for lack of hearing, notice, and reasons.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Judicial Review
• Public Procurement
• Rule 53 Application
• Administrative-law

Holloway and Another v Padi Emea Limited (38785-2014)

Holloway and Another v Padi Emea Limited (38785-2014) [2017] ZAGPJHC 381; 2020 (5) SA 172 (GJ) (8 March 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

38785/2014

Judge

M Victor

The court found that jurisdiction in South Africa is not limited to strict physical presence or attachment but is determined by a wider test of appropriateness and convenience, as established in the Multi-Links and Strang cases. The applicants demonstrated sufficient connecting factors, including local business operations, employment of a regional manager, and the impact of the expulsion decision within South Africa. The court held that Rule 53 applies to the disciplinary proceedings of the foreign tribunal, and that the South Gauteng High Court has jurisdiction to order the production of the…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Sa Courts
• Review Of Foreign Tribunal Decisions
• Rule 53 Application
• Forum Non Conveniens
• Membership Expulsion
• Contractual Nexus