Long Beach Homeowners Association v Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (South Africa) and Another (865/2016) [2017] ZASCA 122; 2018 (2) SA 42 (SCA) (22 September 2017)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
865/2016
Judges
Shongwe, Saldulker, Swain, Mathopo, Schippers
The SCA held that the Department misread the National Forests Act and rigidly followed policy when refusing a forest licence, so the decision was reviewed and set aside.
Risk and Another v Ombud for Financial Services and Others (38791/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 199 (7 September 2012)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
38791/2011
Judge
S.A.M Baqwa
The court held that section 27(3)(c) of the FAIS Act does not confer a right on applicants to demand referral of complaints to court, nor does it impose a duty on the Ombud to do so. The section grants the Ombud a discretionary power, which was properly exercised in this case. The applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by section 39 of the FAIS Act and section 7(2) of PAJA, and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances for exemption. The constitutional challenge to section 27(5)(a) was found to be unnecessary and poorly formulated, as the Ombud's process is consistent…
Botha v Van Zyl and Another (1763/2008) [2009] ZANCHC 19 (29 May 2009)
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Case number
1763/2008
Judge
Lacock R
The court found that the applicant had proven on a balance of probabilities that it was just and equitable for the close corporation to be placed under provisional liquidation. The breakdown in the relationship between the applicant and the first respondent, rooted in severe family conflict and lack of mutual trust, made future cooperation impossible. The applicant had made reasonable efforts to negotiate an exit, but the first respondent refused to engage or make counter-offers. The absence of a cooperation agreement and the inability to resolve the dispute through negotiation created a dead…
The appeal against two death sentences succeeded after the court found the appellant’s age was not properly determined and substituted 12 years’ imprisonment.