South Africa Case Law

Mafube Business Forum and Others v Premier of the Free State Province and Others (A23/2024)

Mafube Business Forum and Others v Premier of the Free State Province and Others (A23/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 93 (25 March 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A23/2024

Judges

Daffue, Chesiwe, Hefer

Full bench upheld an appeal over Mafube’s sewerage pollution and non-compliance, granting declaratory, mandatory and supervisory relief.

• Structural Interdict
• Municipal Maladministration
• Failure To Comply With Court Orders
• Environmental Pollution
• Financial Recovery Plan
• Supervisory Order

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and Another v African Christian Democratic Party (869/2021)

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and Another v African Christian Democratic Party (869/2021) [2022] ZASCA 158 (21 November 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

869/2021

Judges

Petse, Makgoka, Plasket, Windell, Mali

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in granting a supervisory order without affording the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and the Minister of Health a hearing, despite their explicit opposition and request for oral argument. The order was not sought by any party, was not an issue in the pleadings, and was granted in the absence of any evidence to justify its necessity. The court emphasized that judicial power is limited by law and the Constitution, and that parties must be heard before orders affecting them are made. The grant of the supervisory order…

Source excerpt

• Supervisory Order
• Right To Be Heard
• Open Justice
• Separation Of Powers
• Remedial Powers
• Fair Hearing

Agri Eastern Cape and Others v MEC for the Department of Transport and Safety Liaison and Others (3928/2015)

Agri Eastern Cape and Others v MEC for the Department of Transport and Safety Liaison and Others (3928/2015) [2020] ZAECGHC 26 (10 March 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

3928/2015

Judge

N G Beshe

The court found that the respondents had not complied with the terms of the settlement agreement and that the applicants were entitled to have the agreement made an order of court under Rule 41(4). The respondents' objection based on separation of powers was rejected, as the court was not imposing any obligations beyond those agreed to by the parties. Judicial oversight was deemed appropriate and consistent with the agreement itself, which contemplated reporting to the court. The applicants established a need for a supervisory order to ensure compliance, but no case was made for a punitive co…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Structural Interdict
• Supervisory Order
• Separation Of Powers
• Costs Order
• Road Maintenance