South Africa Case Law

Maynard v Carrick Wealth (Pty) Limited (21243/23)

Maynard v Carrick Wealth (Pty) Limited (21243/23) [2024] ZAWCHC 370 (15 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21243/23

Judge

M W Janisch

The Court held that section 14 of the FAIS Act imposes a statutory duty on financial services providers to initiate and effect debarment proceedings in appropriate circumstances, and that this duty cannot be compromised or waived by private agreement, even by way of a settlement agreement. The initiation of debarment proceedings is not administrative action under PAJA but is subject to legality review. The Applicant failed to establish that the Respondent acted unlawfully in initiating the debarment process, either by virtue of the settlement agreement or due to an ulterior purpose. The Respo…

Source excerpt

• Fais Act Debarment
• Fit And Proper Requirements
• Confidential Information
• Restraint Of Trade
• Settlement Agreement
• Ulterior Purpose

Bulk Brick Supplies Property (Pty) Ltd v South African Board for Sheriffs (3249/2021)

Bulk Brick Supplies Property (Pty) Ltd v South African Board for Sheriffs (3249/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 104 (22 November 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

3249/2021

Judge

JE Smith

The High Court reviewed and set aside the Board for Sheriffs’ repudiation of a fidelity fund claim, finding the claim timeous and the decision irrational.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Statutory Review
• Fidelity Fund Claims
• Ulterior Purpose
• Irrationality
• Costs Punitive

Phalatse and Another v Speaker of the City of Johannesburg and Others (2022/26790)

Phalatse and Another v Speaker of the City of Johannesburg and Others (2022/26790) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1054 (25 October 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/26790

Judge

Keightley

The court found that the Programming Committee was inquorate when it placed the motion of no confidence on the agenda, rendering the decision unlawful. The Speaker's notice for the extraordinary meeting was unreasonably short and failed to comply with statutory and constitutional requirements, depriving councillors of meaningful participation and debate. The Speaker unlawfully excluded DA councillors from debate and voting based on their refusal to sign the attendance register, which did not justify depriving them of their constitutional rights. The Council's adoption of the motion of no conf…

Source excerpt

• Principle Of Legality
• Motions Of No Confidence
• Municipal Structures Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Ulterior Purpose
• Democratic Participation

Christelike Maatskaplike Raad Noord v Department of Social Development and Others (32944/2022)

Christelike Maatskaplike Raad Noord v Department of Social Development and Others (32944/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 763 (20 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

32944/2022

Judge

Millar

The court set aside the withdrawal of a child protection organisation’s designation, finding the Department failed to investigate properly and acted unfairly.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Child Protection Organisation Designation
• Procedural Fairness
• Ulterior Purpose
• Bad Faith
• Withdrawal Of Accreditation

Lundy v Beck (45027/2014)

Lundy v Beck (45027/2014) [2019] ZAGPJHC 191; 2019 (5) SA 503 (GJ) (22 May 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

45027/2014

Judge

Snyckers AJ

The court held that once Beck paid the capital amount of the debt on which the nulla bona return was founded, and unconditionally tendered payment of all accrued interest, Lundy could no longer rely on the act of insolvency under s8(b) of the Insolvency Act to seek sequestration. Only interest accrued up to the date of the nulla bona return could be included in the debt; costs of the sequestration proceedings were not part of the debt for this purpose. The application was found to have been brought for an ulterior purpose, namely to achieve eviction and settlement of property disputes, rather…

Source excerpt

• Compulsory Sequestration
• Act Of Insolvency
• Nulla Bona Return
• Advantage To Creditors
• Ulterior Purpose

Scalabrini Centre, Cape Town and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (1107/2016)

Scalabrini Centre, Cape Town and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (1107/2016) [2017] ZASCA 126; [2017] 4 All SA 686 (SCA); 2018 (4) SA 125 (SCA) (29 September 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1107/2016

Judges

Cachalia, Majiedt, Saldulker, Lamont, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Director-General's decision to close the Cape Town Refugee Reception Office was irrational, unlawful, and failed to comply with section 8(1) of the Refugees Act. The decision-maker ignored relevant considerations, including the ongoing necessity of a refugee reception office in Cape Town, the inadequacy of remaining offices, and the lack of investigation into alternative premises or satellite offices. The Director-General made a material error of law by misinterpreting the permissibility of satellite offices and acted with an ulterior purpose to restr…

Source excerpt

• Refugees Act
• Rationality Review
• Ulterior Purpose
• Failure To Consider Relevant Factors
• Separation Of Powers
• Remedies For Unlawful Executive Action

Mogalakwena Local Municipality v Provincial Executive Council, Limpopo and Others (35248/14)

Mogalakwena Local Municipality v Provincial Executive Council, Limpopo and Others (35248/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 400; [2014] 4 All SA 67 (GP) (19 June 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

35248/14

Judge

Tuchten

The court held that the provincial executive council's intervention under section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution was unlawful as it was not preceded by a directive, contrary to constitutional requirements and established legal principles. The intervention notice was unduly vague, failing to specify the executive obligations allegedly not fulfilled, and lacked rationality. The evidence suggested that the intervention was motivated by ulterior political purposes to favour a faction within the ruling party, undermining the municipality's autonomy and democratic mandate. The applicant established…

Source excerpt

• Provincial Intervention In Local Government
• Section 139 Constitution
• Interim Interdict
• Municipal Autonomy
• Separation Of Powers
• Ulterior Purpose

Gauteng Gambling Board and Another v MEC for Economic Development, Gauteng Provincial Government (620/2012)

Gauteng Gambling Board and Another v MEC for Economic Development, Gauteng Provincial Government (620/2012) [2013] ZASCA 67; 2013 (5) SA 24 (SCA); [2013] 3 All SA 370 (SCA) (27 May 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

620/2012

Judges

NAVSA, LEACH, WILLIS, SWAIN, SALDULKER

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the MEC for Economic Development, Gauteng Provincial Government, acted unlawfully and beyond her statutory powers in dissolving the Gauteng Gambling Board. The evidence demonstrated that the MEC's decision was motivated by an ulterior purpose: to pressurise the Board into accommodating a commercial entity, African Romance, in its premises. The MEC's reliance on EXCO's decision and the Gauteng Gambling Act was misplaced, as the statutory framework did not empower her to dissolve the Board for the reasons advanced. The Board was statutorily obliged to act…

Source excerpt

• Principle Of Legality
• Ulterior Purpose
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Finance Management Act
• Costs Orders Against Public Officials

CJ Digital SMS Marketing CC v National Consumer Commission (NCT/3584/2011/101(1))

CJ Digital SMS Marketing CC v National Consumer Commission (NCT/3584/2011/101(1)) [2012] ZANCT 22 (1 October 2012)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/3584/2011/101(1)

Judges

T Woker, B Dumisa, F Manamela

The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not follow the prescribed procedures under the Consumer Protection Act prior to issuing the compliance notice. There was no evidence of a completed investigation, and the compliance notice was issued primarily because the Applicant refused to reach a consent agreement, not because prohibited conduct was established. The compliance notice failed to comply with section 100(3) as it did not specify steps to remedy non-compliance but simply ordered a refund. The Tribunal held that ordering a refund via compliance notice exceeded the Respondent's powers,…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Compliance Notice Review
• Procedural Fairness
• Ulterior Purpose
• Damages Claims
• Powers Of Regulator