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
Bojosinyane v Maroga and Others (Leave to Appeal) (UM197/2022) [2023] ZANWHC 139 (18 August 2023)
The High Court granted leave to appeal to the Full Court in a municipal intervention and employment dispute, finding arguable prospects of success.
Alpla Trading South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Eskom SOC Limited and Others (1910/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 116 (25 June 2020)
The court issued a rule nisi, granted interim compliance relief, and ordered further affidavits in an urgent dispute over electricity supply and alleged contempt.
Mogalakwena Local Municipality v Provincial Executive Council, Limpopo and Others (35248/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 536; 2016 (4) SA 99 (GP) (7 August 2014)
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the order in question was not final and therefore not appealable. There were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The decision did not dispose of all the issues in the case, as the substantive review was still pending. Section 17(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act precludes appeals in such circumstances unless it would lead to a just and prompt resolution of the real issues. The application for condonation was granted as the applicant did not oppose it, but the application for leave to appeal fai…
Source excerpt
Mogalakwena Local Municipality v Provincial Executive Council, Limpopo and Others (35248/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 400; [2014] 4 All SA 67 (GP) (19 June 2014)
The court held that the provincial executive council's intervention under section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution was unlawful as it was not preceded by a directive, contrary to constitutional requirements and established legal principles. The intervention notice was unduly vague, failing to specify the executive obligations allegedly not fulfilled, and lacked rationality. The evidence suggested that the intervention was motivated by ulterior political purposes to favour a faction within the ruling party, undermining the municipality's autonomy and democratic mandate. The applicant established…
Source excerpt
Mautitious and Others v Maquassi Hills Local Municipality and Others (J816/2014) [2014] ZALCJHB 171 (12 May 2014)
The court found that Motala, as Administrator appointed under section 139 of the Constitution, had the requisite executive authority to conclude the settlement agreement on behalf of the first respondent. Jonas lacked authority to oppose the application or instruct attorneys, as his appointment as Municipal Manager had been declared null and void in previous judgments and Motala had expressly excluded him from giving instructions. The urgency of the application was justified as the applicants acted promptly after being prevented from taking up their positions, and delay would risk irreparable…
Source excerpt
Mnquma Local Municipality and Another v Premier of the Eastern Cape and Others (231/2009) [2009] ZAECBHC 14 (5 August 2009)
The court held that the provincial executive's decision to dissolve the Mnquma Municipal Council did not comply with the requirements of section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution. The jurisdictional facts necessary for intervention—namely, a current and objective failure to fulfil an executive obligation and the existence of exceptional circumstances—were absent. The provincial executive misconstrued statutory obligations as executive obligations and relied on cumulative, vague, and in some instances past or trivial failures, many of which could have been addressed by less intrusive means. The pr…
Source excerpt
Khoza v Premier of Kwazulu-Natal and Others (8641/08) [2008] ZAKZHC 52 (15 July 2008)
The court found that the intervention by the Executive Council under section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution was unlawful, as the charges against the applicant did not relate to any failure by the municipality to fulfil executive obligations or to service delivery issues. The disciplinary inquiry and removal from office were not justified under section 139(1)(b), and the MEC failed to exercise his own discretion as required by Item 14(6) of the Municipal Systems Act. The applicant was entitled to challenge his removal independently of the inquiry's establishment, and his participation did not a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
