South Africa Case Law

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/095869)

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/095869) [2025] ZAGPJHC 629 (24 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/095869

Judge

Mudau

Leave to appeal was dismissed in a municipal rates-policy review, with the court finding no reasonable prospects of success or other compelling reason.

• Public Participation
• Rates Policy Review
• Best Interests Of Child
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Municipal Powers
• Section 172 Constitution

S v Zuma and Another (CCD30/2018)

S v Zuma and Another (CCD30/2018) [2025] ZAKZPHC 56 (3 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

CCD30/2018

Judge

Chili

The court held that it is not competent to order the State to stop the prosecution under section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as this discretion lies exclusively with the prosecuting authority. The relief sought by Thales and Mr Zuma was therefore not available. The court further found that the deaths of Messrs Maynot and Thétard, while unfortunate, did not amount to irreparable or insurmountable prejudice sufficient to justify stopping the prosecution or acquitting the accused. The alleged prejudice was speculative, and the availability and value of other witnesses could only be properly…

Source excerpt

• Withdrawal Of Prosecution
• Fair Trial Rights
• Irreparable Prejudice
• Section 6 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 172 Constitution

ML Nkosi Electrical Contractors CC and Another v Ba-Phalaborwa Local Municipality (Appeal) (HCAA40/2023)

ML Nkosi Electrical Contractors CC and Another v Ba-Phalaborwa Local Municipality (Appeal) (HCAA40/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 85 (25 April 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCAA40/2023

Judges

Bresler AJ, Naude-Odendaal J, Du Plessis AJ

The court found that the award of Tender 06/2012 to the appellants was unlawful and invalid due to procedural irregularities and non-compliance with statutory and constitutional procurement requirements. Despite the respondent's delay in instituting self-review proceedings, the importance of upholding the rule of law and legality outweighed the delay. Both parties had performed under the contract, and there was no evidence of fraud or bad faith by the appellants. The court held that, although the contract must be declared invalid, justice and equity require that the appellants not be deprived…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Tender Review
• Unlawful Contract
• Delay In Self Review
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Section 172 Constitution
• Public Procurement Irregularities

South African Tourism Board v Letsema Consulting and Advisory (Pty) Ltd and Others (64334/2021)

South African Tourism Board v Letsema Consulting and Advisory (Pty) Ltd and Others (64334/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 395 (22 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64334/2021

Judge

K La M Manamela

The High Court granted Letsema leave to appeal against a legality-review remedy, finding arguable issues about profits, reasonable expenses, appealability, and costs.

• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Public Procurement Review
• Section 172 Constitution
• Appealability Of Orders
• Costs Award
• No Profit Principle

South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Another v Lornavision (Pty) Ltd (49514/2017)

South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Another v Lornavision (Pty) Ltd (49514/2017) [2024] ZAGPJHC 299 (19 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

49514/2017

Judge

Dosio

The court found that the written services agreement between the SABC and Lornavision was declared unlawful and void ab initio, requiring restitution of the full amount paid under the contract. Lornavision failed to file a plea and thus could not oppose the default judgment application. The affidavits of Ms Tladi and Mr Daniels, which quantified the loss and confirmed the lack of benefit to the SABC, were accepted as uncontested evidence. Technical objections to the commissioning of affidavits were dismissed, as substantial compliance was established and supplementary affidavits were provided.…

Source excerpt

• Unjust Enrichment
• Public Procurement Irregularity
• Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam
• No Profit Principle
• Section 172 Constitution
• Default Judgment

MEC for the Department of Public Works, Eastern Cape and Another v Ikamva Architects CC (544/2021)

MEC for the Department of Public Works, Eastern Cape and Another v Ikamva Architects CC (544/2021) [2022] ZASCA 184; [2023] 1 All SA 579 (SCA); 2023 (2) SA 514 (SCA) (20 December 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

544/2021

Judges

Van Der Merwe, Gorven, Basson, Windell, Salie-Hlophe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the relief sought by the applicants, namely an order prohibiting execution of a valid and binding default judgment, is not permissible under section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the sanctity of court orders and the rule of law require that valid judgments be respected and enforced unless set aside by rescission or appeal. There is no authority in South African law for a court to render nugatory an extant, valid, and binding judgment by prohibiting its enforcement. The cases relied upon by the applicants, which involved repaymen…

Source excerpt

• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Section 172 Constitution
• Enforceability Of Court Orders
• Default Judgment
• Self Review
• Res Judicata

Public Protector of South Africa v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (8500/2022)

Public Protector of South Africa v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (8500/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 222 (3 November 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8500/2022

Judges

L G Nuku, M Francis, J D Lekhuleni

The High Court dismissed leave-to-appeal applications against its section 18 ruling, holding that SCA appeal would be futile and that the Constitutional Court would resolve the dispute.

• Confirmation Of Invalidity
• Interim Orders
• Leave To Appeal
• Presidential Conduct
• Section 18 Superior Courts Act
• Section 172 Constitution

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Caledon River Properties(Pty) Ltd and Another (GP/17/2020)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Caledon River Properties(Pty) Ltd and Another (GP/17/2020) [2022] ZAST 6 (8 March 2022)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP/17/2020

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Tribunal found that both parties failed to lead evidence to substantiate their pleaded cases regarding the remedy. The applicants' claim for full repayment of prepaid amounts was inconsistent with the established no profit no loss principle in government procurement invalidity cases. The respondents did not establish exceptional circumstances justifying retention of vested rights or profits. Applying the Constitutional Court's guidance, the Tribunal held that the just and equitable remedy is to divest the respondents of any profits earned under the invalid contracts, but not to leave them…

Source excerpt

• Government Procurement
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• No Profit No Loss Principle
• Section 172 Constitution
• Public Interest
• Contract Invalidity

Bushbuckridge Local Municipality v Mylocel (Pty) Ltd (1537/2019)

Bushbuckridge Local Municipality v Mylocel (Pty) Ltd (1537/2019) [2021] ZAMPMHC 23 (27 August 2021)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1537/2019

Judge

Mtimunye

The High Court set aside a municipal service agreement for non-compliant procurement and upheld legality review despite a 15-month delay.

• Legality Review
• Section 172 Constitution
• Municipal Procurement
• Unsolicited Bids
• Delay In Review
• Just And Equitable Remedy

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Vision View Productions CC (2019/20801)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Vision View Productions CC (2019/20801) [2020] ZAGPJHC 421 (19 June 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/20801

Judges

D Mlambo, S E Weiner, R Keightley

The court held that the contract between SABC and the respondent was invalid due to procurement irregularities and non-compliance with section 217 of the Constitution and related policies. While the respondent was not found to be corrupt, its ignorance of procurement requirements did not justify full retention of contractual rights. The court a quo erred in granting remedial orders that allowed the respondent to claim the full contract price, including profit, contrary to Constitutional Court precedent. The correct just and equitable remedy is to allow the respondent to recover only its reaso…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Irregularity
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Section 172 Constitution
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Declaration Of Invalidity