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
Ndhlovu v Correctional Supervision Parole Board and Others (2025/16719) [2025] ZAGPJHC 427 (29 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed an urgent review of a parole postponement, holding that no final parole decision had been made and no reviewable administrative action was shown.
Minister of Women v Mahapa and Another (JR72/2020) [2024] ZALCJHB 12 (16 January 2024)
The Labour Court held that a review application brought by the State as employer under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA is a legality review and not subject to the deeming provisions of the Labour Court Practice Manual. The Practice Manual does not apply to such legality reviews, and the application cannot be deemed withdrawn or archived due to delay in filing the record. The correct procedure for filing the record is governed by Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The delay in filing the record was attributable to the presiding officer's failure to dispatch the record, and partial compliance…
Source excerpt
Cloete Murray N.O and Others v Ntombela and Others In re Ntombela and Another v Cloete Murray N.O and Others (3807/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 160; [2022] 3 All SA 689 (FB) (24 June 2022)
The High Court granted leave to appeal over whether liquidators’ refusal to perform a pre-liquidation property sale was reviewable and whether a Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) notice was premature.
Cell C (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (30959/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 152; 2022 (4) SA 183 (GP); 84 SATC 369 (11 March 2022)
The High Court held that Cell C was confined to the wide appeal under section 47(9)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act and could not compel a Rule 53 record.
Swart Redelinghuys Nel & Partners INC v Theron Jordan & Smit INC (HC1/2022) [2022] ZANWHC 1 (11 February 2022)
The High Court held that there is no legal basis for a Magistrate in civil proceedings to refer a judgment for review to the High Court mero motu, as is permitted in criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Act. The correct procedure for reviewing a civil judgment is for an interested or affected party to bring an application under Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court. Alternatively, a void judgment may be set aside by way of an application for rescission in terms of Section 36(1)(b) of the Magistrates’ Court Act, read with Rule 49 of the Magistrates’ Court Rules. The Magistrate sho…
Source excerpt
ISA & Partners (Pty) Ltd v M3D Suppliers (Pty) Ltd t/a S & W Consulting and Another (A117/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 38 (9 February 2021)
The High Court dismissed an attempt to set aside an arbitral award and refused leave to supplement the papers, finding no factual basis for section 33 relief.
Slaughter and Others v Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent (36596/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 198 (31 May 2019)
The court upheld a PAJA time-bar objection to a late-added review claim, but allowed amended papers and a section 9 variation application.
Dalasile v South African Social Security Agency and Another (1991/2018) [2019] ZAECMHC 1 (31 January 2019)
The High Court dismissed a SASSA employee’s challenge to disciplinary proceedings, holding that the Public Service disciplinary code applied and that procedural defects were fatal.
Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality v Erastyle (Pty) Ltd and Others (398/2016) [2018] ZAECPEHC 61; 2019 (3) SA 559 (ECP) (6 November 2018)
The court held that Rule 53 is not a mandatory procedure for a municipality seeking to review its own decisions, especially where the decision-maker is in possession of the record and reasons. The procedural benefits conferred by Rule 53 are intended for parties without access to the record, and can be waived by the applicant. The plaintiff had properly pleaded its case and given notice to affected parties, satisfying the requirements for review. Section 32(2)(b) of the MFMA does not preclude recovery of irregular expenditure unless the expenditure has been certified as irrecoverable and writ…
Source excerpt
Standard Bank of South Africa v Competition Commission of South Africa (165/CACMar 18) [2018] ZACAC 3; [2018] 1 CPLR 121 (CAC) (22 June 2018)
The court held that record production in review proceedings is procedural and ordered the Competition Commission to file the complete record.
Explore more
