South Africa Case Law

Maleka v Nedbank Limited and Others (2025/083622)

Maleka v Nedbank Limited and Others (2025/083622) [2025] ZAGPJHC 625 (23 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/083622

Judge

Smit

The applicant failed to establish a clear or prima facie right to the relief sought. His 'interpleader affidavit' did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 45(5), as it did not constitute a valid suretyship or undertaking to produce the attached goods. The sheriff acted lawfully in executing the writ and removing the goods. The applicant's reliance on the best interests of the child under section 28(2) of the Constitution was misplaced, as he did not challenge the constitutionality of the underlying rules, and the principle of subsidiarity precludes direct reliance on the Constitution in such…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Interpleader Proceedings
• Urgent Application Principles
• Best Interests Of Child
• Suretyship Under Rule 45
• Subsidiarity Principle

Democratic Alliance v African National Congress and Others (31418/2022)

Democratic Alliance v African National Congress and Others (31418/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 374 (11 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31418/2022

Judges

A.P Ledwaba, N.N Bam, M.M Mojapelo

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to plead a valid constitutional attack against the ANC's Cadre Deployment Policy and relevant statutory provisions. The court found that the applicant did not impugn specific clauses of the policy, failed to establish how the policy is government policy, and did not demonstrate any application or threat of application by public officials. The applicant's evidence regarding corruption and the policy's implementation was rejected. The court held that the applicant's grounds of appeal do not engage the core finding tha…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Cadre Deployment Policy
• Constitutional Attack
• Public Service Appointments
• Costs Award
• Subsidiarity Principle

Gumede v Minister of Home Affairs (2024/026615)

Gumede v Minister of Home Affairs (2024/026615) [2025] ZAGPJHC 173 (23 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/026615

Judge

W.J. du Plessis

The court held that the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action in delict. Although the conduct complained of may constitute administrative action, the plaintiff is not seeking a review under PAJA but rather damages for negligent conduct. The principle of subsidiarity does not preclude a delictual claim in these circumstances. The plaintiff pleaded the essential elements of a delictual claim: wrongful act or omission, fault, causation, and damages. The pleadings are sufficiently particular to enable the defendant to respond, and evidence could be led to prove the claim. Therefore, the…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Negligence
• Vicarious Liability
• Bill Of Rights Infringement
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Identity Document Dispute

De Jager v Netcare Limited and Others (42041/16)

De Jager v Netcare Limited and Others (42041/16) [2025] ZAGPPHC 141 (17 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

42041/16

Judge

M P Motha

The court admitted surveillance evidence in a health-related privacy dispute, holding POPIA applied and justified processing under section 27(1)(b).

• Protection Of Personal Information Act
• Privacy Rights
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Surveillance
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Popia

Mini Developments CC v Minister of Police and Another (A191/2023)

Mini Developments CC v Minister of Police and Another (A191/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 361 (6 November 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A191/2023

Judges

Daniso, Greyling-Coetzer, Nemavhidi

The court dismissed an appeal seeking return of seized trailers and SAP VIN numbers, holding that the dispute was administrative and should have been pursued under PAJA.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Vehicle Identification Number
• Forfeiture Of Property
• Mandamus
• Traffic Act Section 68

Alpine House CC and Others v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board (064786/2024)

Alpine House CC and Others v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board (064786/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 685 (11 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

064786/2024

Judge

Mooki

The court held that the applicants were not entitled to the relief sought. The applicants could not rely directly on constitutional provisions where PAJA provides the applicable framework, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. The relief sought was not competent, as the applicants did not seek judicial review and the court cannot act under PAJA outside review proceedings. The requirements for mandamus and interim interdict were not met, as there was no main dispute or status quo to preserve, and the right to trade in liquor is not a basic right but a regulated privilege. The court found…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Mandamus
• Interim Interdict
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Liquor Licensing

Topigs Norsvin SA Proprietary Limited v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Others (013715/2022)

Topigs Norsvin SA Proprietary Limited v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Others (013715/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 561 (19 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

013715/2022

Judge

ML Twala

The court found that while the applicant established a clear right to an unpolluted environment and demonstrated ongoing pollution and degradation of downstream water resources by Eskom, it failed to satisfy the requirement of absence of alternative remedy. Section 28(12) of NEMA provides a statutory mechanism for compelling the Director-General to take remedial action against polluters, which the applicant did not invoke. The court held that the principle of subsidiarity precludes direct constitutional relief where legislation exists to give effect to the right, and the applicant should have…

Source excerpt

• Water Use Licence Compliance
• Structural Interdict
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Duty Of Care
• Constitutional Environmental Rights
• Enforcement Of Environmental Laws

Ledwaba v Provincial Commissioner SAPS (Limpopo) and Others (3488/2020)

Ledwaba v Provincial Commissioner SAPS (Limpopo) and Others (3488/2020) [2024] ZALMPPHC 61 (14 June 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

3488/2020

Judge

Kanyane AJ

The court found that the applicant was the owner of the 15 cattle impounded and sold by the SPCA at the instance of SAPS officials. The SPCA was not duly appointed as Poundmaster for the area where the cattle were impounded, and its authority to act had expired prior to the events. The impoundment and sale were therefore unlawful for want of authority and non-compliance with statutory requirements, particularly the advertisement and approval procedures under the Limpopo Pounds Act. The applicant's claim for direct constitutional relief under section 25 was barred by the principle of subsidiar…

Source excerpt

• Impoundment Of Livestock
• Municipal Pounds
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Unlawful Deprivation Of Property
• Declaratory Relief
• Damages Claim

Minister for Transport and Public Works: Western Cape & others v Adonisi and Others (522/2021 & 523/2021)

Minister for Transport and Public Works: Western Cape & others v Adonisi and Others (522/2021 & 523/2021) [2024] ZASCA 47; [2024] 3 All SA 49 (SCA); 2024 (4) SA 499 (SCA); 2024 (11) BCLR 1411 (SCA) (12 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

522/2021 & 523/2021

Judges

Dambuza, Zondi, Schippers, Molefe, Unterhalter

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the principle of constitutional subsidiarity precludes direct reliance on sections 25 and 26 of the Constitution where comprehensive legislation exists to give effect to those rights. The Housing Act and Social Housing Act, together with related statutes, form the primary legal framework for the progressive realisation of the right to adequate housing. The court found no statutory obligation requiring the Province or City to provide social housing at a specific location, such as central Cape Town. The Province and City had implemented policies and program…

Source excerpt

• Subsidiarity Principle
• Adequate Housing
• Social Housing Act
• Government Immovable Asset Management Act
• Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act
• Public Participation

Yako v National Lotteries Commission (NLC) and Others (2024/027585)

Yako v National Lotteries Commission (NLC) and Others (2024/027585) [2024] ZAGPJHC 308; (2024) 45 ILJ 1352 (GJ) (26 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/027585

Judge

Moorcroft AJ

The court found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting intervention in the incomplete disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary process was properly initiated by the Commissioner and ratified by the Board, and the applicant's rights to a fair hearing were not infringed. The principle of subsidiarity applied, requiring reliance on the Public Finance Management Act rather than direct constitutional invocation. The requirements for interim and final interdicts were not met, as the applicant did not demonstrate a clear right, irreparable harm, or lack of alte…

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Interdict Requirements
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Suspension With Pay