South Africa Case Law

Panamo Properties 112 CC v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2022/056444)

Panamo Properties 112 CC v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2022/056444) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1213 (27 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/056444

Judge

Dlamini

The High Court remitted a municipal property valuation dispute to the Valuation Appeal Board for reconsideration, declining to substitute its own valuation.

• Municipal Valuation
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Substitution Vs Remittal
• Separation Of Powers
• Municipal-valuation
• Review-of-administrative-action

Bester N.O v Master of the High Court and Another (17428/2021)

Bester N.O v Master of the High Court and Another (17428/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 208; 2023 (6) SA 199 (WCC) (16 August 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17428/2021

Judge

K Hofmeyr

The court reviewed the Master’s failure to decide an executor’s section 47 request to sell estate property, but remitted the matter rather than substituting its own decision.

• Administration Of Estates Act
• Executor Powers
• Sale Of Estate Property
• Master Oversight
• Judicial Review
• Substitution Vs Remittal

Amos v Minister of Justice and Others (9469/17)

Amos v Minister of Justice and Others (9469/17) [2019] ZAWCHC 130 (12 September 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9469/17

Judge

M Sher

High Court review of a magistrate appointment was granted after a defective interview process. The court remitted the matter for a fresh, properly constituted process.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Appointments
• Substitution Vs Remittal
• Quorum Requirements
• Bias And Procedural Fairness
• Administrative-law

Phodiclinics (Pty) Ltd v Pinehaven Private Hospital (Pty) Ltd and Others (594/2010)

Phodiclinics (Pty) Ltd v Pinehaven Private Hospital (Pty) Ltd and Others (594/2010) [2011] ZASCA 163; [2011] 4 All SA 331 (SCA) (28 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

594/2010

Judges

Mthiyane, Maya, Cachalia, Bosielo, Seriti

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Head of Department made a composite decision regarding both applications for private hospitals, and the appellant was competent to appeal against both the refusal of its own application and the approval of the respondents' application. The court found that necessity is the sole criterion for approval under regulation 7, but identification of a specific site is not required at the permission stage. The failure to serve the appeal on affected parties did not invalidate the appeal, but the procedure adopted by the MEC was procedurally unfair, warranting…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Administrative Action
• Procedural Fairness
• Substitution Vs Remittal
• Health Facility Regulation