Kruinkloof Bushveld Estate NPC v The Chairperson of the Panel of Appeal Arbitrators and Others (20/18332) [2022] ZAGPJHC 268; 2022 (6) SA 236 (GJ) (29 March 2022)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
20/18332
Judge
I Opperman
Court dismissed a review of an arbitral appeal award, corrected an erroneous costs order as a slip, and held the rest of the award severable and valid.
Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse v Minister of Transport and Others (32097/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 1; 2022 (2) SA 566 (GP) (13 January 2022)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
32097/2020
Judge
Basson
The court found that the AARTO Act and the Amendment Act unlawfully intrude upon the exclusive legislative and executive competence of provincial and local governments as set out in Schedule 5 of the Constitution. The Acts create a single national system for the administrative enforcement of road traffic laws, thereby usurping the powers reserved for provinces and municipalities. The court applied the 'bottom-up' approach endorsed by the Constitutional Court, carving out exclusive municipal and provincial competencies before considering national powers. The respondents failed to establish any…
South African Veterinary Association v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT27/18) [2018] ZACC 49; 2019 (2) BCLR 273 (CC); 2019 (3) SA 62 (CC) (5 December 2018)
The Court found that the National Assembly failed to facilitate public participation when inserting the word 'veterinarian' into section 22C(1)(a) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, as no public hearings or invitations to affected groups occurred after the amendment. The National Council of Provinces and Provincial Legislatures also failed to provide reasonable notice and did not invite submissions from veterinary organisations. These failures breached sections 59(1)(a), 72(1)(a), and 118(1)(a) of the Constitution. The amendment was material, affecting the entire veterinary professi…
Malesela Taihan Electric Cable (Pty) Ltd v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd (17193/2014) [2017] ZAGPJHC 341 (18 April 2017)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
17193/2014
Judge
P.A. Meyer
The High Court held Fidelity liable for a full reimbursement after its guards facilitated copper theft, and struck down the liability cap to that extent.
Mendelow Jacobs Attorneys v Mutupe (00453/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 54 (6 March 2017)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
00453/2016
Judge
Van der Linde
Clause 5 of the acknowledgment of debt, which binds the debtor to a certificate of balance issued by the creditor, is void according to established precedent. While the principle of severability may allow the remainder of the acknowledgment to stand, the constitutional issue raised by the defendant is decisive. The defendant's defence, insisting on taxation by the Taxing Master and challenging a substantial invoice, cannot be properly adjudicated without oral evidence. Under the ratio of Twee Jonge Gezellen, the provisional sentence procedure is unconstitutional in circumstances where the def…
Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v MEC For Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Eastern Cape and Others (1278/14) [2014] ZAECGHC 114 (13 November 2014)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
1278/14
Judge
Smith
The court found that grocer’s wine licences issued under the 1989 Liquor Act constitute property for the purposes of section 25(1) of the Constitution, as they are definable, commercially valuable, transferable (subject to approval), and sufficiently permanent. The impugned provisions of the Eastern Cape Liquor Act, which mandated the automatic lapsing of these licences after ten years, resulted in a substantial and permanent deprivation of property. The respondents failed to provide sufficient and compelling reasons for this deprivation, relying on speculative policy concerns and administrat…
Parow Motorhandelaars (Pty) Ltd v Parker (17638/2012) [2014] ZAWCHC 122 (18 August 2014)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
17638/2012
Judge
Binns-Ward
The court found that the credit agreement was structured to disguise a substantial initiation fee as part of the capital loan, in direct contravention of the National Credit Act and its regulations. The fee far exceeded the statutory maximum and was not disclosed as required, undermining the Act’s objectives of consumer protection, transparency, and fairness. The contract’s formulation constituted fraud on the Act and materially frustrated its purposes. Severance was not appropriate, as it would result in a contract fundamentally different from that intended by the parties. The agreement was…
M & G Media Ltd v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (1242/09) [2013] ZAGPPHC 35; [2013] 2 All SA 316 (GNP); 2013 (3) SA 591 (GNP) (14 February 2013)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
1242/09
Judge
Raulinga
High Court judgment on PAIA access to the Mbeki-appointed Zimbabwe election report, holding that the state failed to justify refusal and ordering disclosure.
President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v M & G Media Ltd (CCT 03/11) [2011] ZACC 32; 2012 (2) BCLR 181 (CC); 2012 (2) SA 50 (CC) (29 November 2011)
Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 03/11
Judges
Ngcobo, Froneman, Mogoeng, Mthiyane, Yacoob, Cameron, Jafta, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen
The Constitutional Court held that the High Court should have invoked section 80 of PAIA to examine the report itself, given the unique constraints faced by both parties in presenting and refuting evidence regarding the exemptions claimed. The state argued its hands were tied by statutory provisions prohibiting reference to the record's contents, while the respondent could not challenge assertions about the report without access to it. The Court found that the interests of justice required the High Court to examine the report to determine the validity of the exemptions and the lawfulness of t…
Arrest tanquam suspectus de fuga under section 30(1) and (3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act deprives a person of liberty without just cause because it can be used before civil liability is established and does not necessarily achieve a legitimate purpose that could justify the detention. The limitation is not reasonable and justifiable under section 36, so the impugned provisions are unconstitutional; the offensive words in section 30(1) are severed and section 30(3) is struck down, with retrospective effect limited to pending cases.
