South Africa Case Law

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union obo Manzini v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1505/23)

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union obo Manzini v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1505/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 288 (9 May 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 1505/23

Judge

M T M Phehane

The Labour Court held that the review application on substantive fairness must fail, as the second respondent's decision to uphold the dismissal was reasonable in light of the evidence, including video footage showing Ms Manzini's violent conduct. The principle of double jeopardy was not triggered, as no second disciplinary hearing occurred; rather, management reviewed the sanction under an empowering provision in the disciplinary code. The doctrine of subsidiarity precluded reliance on constitutional unlawfulness, requiring the applicant to pursue remedies under the Labour Relations Act. How…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Procedural Fairness
• Double Jeopardy
• Disciplinary Code
• Subsidiarity
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal

Zuma and Another v South African Broaddcasting Corporation and Others (2024/077748)

Zuma and Another v South African Broaddcasting Corporation and Others (2024/077748) [2025] ZAGPJHC 79 (31 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/077748

Judge

Fisher

The High Court dismissed a challenge to the SABC’s use of “Government of National Unity,” holding that the dispute was political, not constitutional.

• Freedom Of Expression
• Broadcasting Regulation
• Review Under Paja
• Section 172 Declaration
• Editorial Policy
• Subsidiarity

Dipela v Limpopo Economic Development Agency (J1125/21)

Dipela v Limpopo Economic Development Agency (J1125/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 113; (2024) 45 ILJ 1278 (LC) (15 March 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1125/21

Judge

R Daniels

The Labour Court dismissed an unfair labour practice application for lack of jurisdiction and ordered costs de bonis propriis against the applicant's representative.

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Jurisdiction
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Subsidiarity
• Referral To Ccma
• Unfair-labour-practice

Leshabane v Minister of Human Settlements and Others (J 1615-21)

Leshabane v Minister of Human Settlements and Others (J 1615-21) [2024] ZALCJHB 84 (16 February 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 1615-21

Judge

S Snyman

The applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The grounds advanced for leave to appeal were either not pleaded, not supported by the facts, or contrary to settled legal principles. The applicant did not follow the prescribed processes under the LRA, bypassed the required referral to the CCMA, and attempted to rely directly on the Constitution, which is impermissible under the principle of subsidiarity. The court found no error in its original judgment and held that mere disagreement with the findings does not constitute grou…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Jurisdiction
• Unfair Dismissal
• Subsidiarity
• Breach Of Contract

Ilse Becker and Others v The Financial Services Conduct Authority and Others (454/2022)

Ilse Becker and Others v The Financial Services Conduct Authority and Others (454/2022) [2023] ZASCA 149; 2024 (2) SA 348 (SCA) (10 November 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

454/2022

Judges

Petse, Mothle, Meyer, Siwendu, Unterhalter

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Financial Sector Regulation Act, properly interpreted, does not exclude the right of affected persons to make submissions on whether a contravention of a financial sector law has occurred. Section 154 requires the Authority to provide reasons and invite submissions on all matters relevant to a proposed debarment order, which necessarily includes the issue of contravention. Similarly, section 167 requires consideration of submissions relevant to the imposition of administrative penalties. Even if the Act did not expressly require such submissions, sect…

Source excerpt

• Procedural Fairness
• Financial Sector Regulation
• Administrative Penalty
• Debarment Order
• Subsidiarity
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Van Veen v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Others - Application for Leave to Appeal (2280/2022)

Van Veen v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Others - Application for Leave to Appeal (2280/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 228 (31 August 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2280/2022

Judge

A.G. Binns-Ward

The court found that while there was an unreasonable delay in instituting criminal proceedings, the applicant failed to demonstrate material trial-related prejudice. The medical evidence of intellectual incapacity was uncontroverted but fell within the scope of statutory remedies provided by sections 77 and 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Applying the principle of subsidiarity, the court held that a civil application for a stay of prosecution was precluded. Furthermore, the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for final interdictory relief due to the availability of adequate alternati…

Source excerpt

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Unreasonable Delay
• Intellectual Incapacity
• Subsidiarity
• Final Interdict
• Fair Trial Rights

Odendaal v South African Reserve Bank (2271/2022)

Odendaal v South African Reserve Bank (2271/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 160 (6 July 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2271/2022

Judge

Wille

The court dismissed an application to release blocked funds, finding the applicant repudiated the agreement and that any constitutional complaint had to be brought under PAJA.

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Blocking Orders
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Specific Performance
• Constitutional Rights Enforcement

Eskom v Vaal River Development Association (Pty) Ltd and Others

The appeal was dismissed because the majority held that, for purposes of the interim interdict and proposed PAJA review, the residents had shown a sufficient prima facie case based on the infringement of constitutional rights by Eskom’s substantial reduction of electricity supply and the alleged lack of fair process; the harm was ongoing and severe, the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the pre-reduction supply pending review, and the High Court’s interim order was properly sustained. Leave to appeal was granted but the interim interdict remained in force.

Source excerpt

• Interim interdicts
• Bulk electricity supply
• Reduction of electricity supply
• Prima facie right
• Paja review
• Subsidiarity

Esorfranki Pipelines (Pty) Ltd v Mopani District Municipality (CCT 222/21)

Esorfranki Pipelines (Pty) Ltd v Mopani District Municipality (CCT 222/21) [2022] ZACC 41; 2023 (2) BCLR 149 (CC); 2023 (2) SA 31 (CC) (30 November 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 222/21

Judges

Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Mlambo, Theron, Tshiqi, Unterhalter

The Constitutional Court held that economic loss sustained as a result of a breach of section 217 of the Constitution, whether or not the breach is intentional, is not recoverable in delict. The principle of subsidiarity and the scheme of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) require that claims for compensation for administrative injustice be pursued under PAJA, which provides for just and equitable relief, including compensation in exceptional cases. Extending the common law to allow delictual claims for such loss would subvert the legislative framework and create parallel syst…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Constitutional Procurement
• Loss Of Profit
• Wrongfulness
• Public Policy
• Subsidiarity

Baba and Others v Clicks Group Limited and Another (EC 12/2020)

Baba and Others v Clicks Group Limited and Another (EC 12/2020) [2022] ZAWCHC 32; 2022 (4) SA 141 (WCC) (28 February 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

EC 12/2020

Judge

Dolamo

The Equality Court dismissed a challenge to the TRESemmé advert, finding no unfair racial discrimination in context and holding the wrong company was cited.

• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Unfair Discrimination
• Company Liability
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Freedom Of Expression
• Equality-act