South Africa Case Law

Mandela Bay Development Agency and Others v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (3619/2023)

Mandela Bay Development Agency and Others v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (3619/2023) [2024] ZAECQBHC 25 (19 March 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

3619/2023

Judge

Eksteen

The court held that the MBDA board was not lawfully removed, ordered the municipality to resume quarterly payments, and rejected objections based on arbitration, joinder, and urgency.

• Municipal Entities
• Removal Of Directors
• Service Delivery Agreement
• Arbitration Clause
• Locus Standi
• Joinder Of Parties

Mogaladi v Tshwane Economic Development Agency SOC Ltd ("TEDA") and Others (54865/20)

Mogaladi v Tshwane Economic Development Agency SOC Ltd ("TEDA") and Others (54865/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 515 (14 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

54865/20

Judge

Ndlokovane

The High Court held that section 93J of the Municipal Systems Act vests CEO appointment power in a municipal entity’s board, not the municipality.

• Municipal Entities
• Appointment Of Chief Executive Officer
• Principle Of Legality
• Ultra Vires
• Service Delivery Agreement
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Media News (Pty) Ltd (963/2021)

Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Media News (Pty) Ltd (963/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 126 (19 May 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

963/2021

Judge

P.E. Molitsoane

The Free State High Court set aside Matjhabeng Municipality’s appointment of Media News and their 2018 service delivery agreement, granted condonation, and barred further performance under it.

• Unlawful Appointment
• Service Delivery Agreement
• Condonation
• Interdict
• Municipal By Laws
• Administrative-law

Sakhiwo Health Solutions (Limpopo) (Pty) Ltd v MEC of Health , Limpopo Provincial Government (908/2013)

Sakhiwo Health Solutions (Limpopo) (Pty) Ltd v MEC of Health , Limpopo Provincial Government (908/2013) [2014] ZASCA 206 (28 November 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

908/2013

Judges

Lewis, Bosielo, Wallis, Schoeman, Dambuza

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred by considering only the SDA and ignoring the RFP and bid award, which together formed the contractual matrix. The SDA was auxiliary to the RFP and bid award, which constituted the principal contract. The RFP expressly provided for a five-year maintenance period after commissioning of each project, and the SDA incorporated these terms. The parol evidence rule did not preclude consideration of the RFP, as it was part of the contract. The Shifren principle was not applicable, as the dispute concerned interpretation, not variation. The co…

Source excerpt

• Contractual Interpretation
• Service Delivery Agreement
• Maintenance Obligations
• Parol Evidence Rule
• Shifren Principle

Dumpit Waste Removal (Pty) Ltd and City of Johannesburg / Pikitup Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd (21/IR/Apr02)

Dumpit Waste Removal (Pty) Ltd and City of Johannesburg / Pikitup Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd (21/IR/Apr02) [2004] ZACT 1; [2004] 1 CPLR 189 (CT) (5 January 2004)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

21/IR/Apr02

Judges

D. Lewis, N. Manoim, M.R Madlanga

The Tribunal found that the provision of waste removal services in Johannesburg is reserved to the municipality by the Constitution and implemented through the Municipal Systems Act. The City of Johannesburg lawfully established Pikitup as a municipal entity and granted it exclusive rights to certain waste services via a Service Delivery Agreement. The exclusivity is a result of statutory and administrative decision, not market power. Therefore, Pikitup's monopoly over 'council services' does not constitute abuse of dominance under the Competition Act. Since interim relief requires the existe…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Exclusionary Acts
• Municipal Services
• Jurisdiction Of Competition Act
• Service Delivery Agreement