South Africa Case Law

Sullivan and Others v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (37166/2023)

Sullivan and Others v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (37166/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 197 (29 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37166/2023

Judge

G S Myburgh

The court granted interim relief restoring technical allowances to three SANDF employees pending grievances and possible review proceedings, finding the discontinuance likely unlawful.

• Unilateral Change To Remuneration
• Interim Interdict
• Defence Act Section 55
• Internal Grievance Procedure
• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Interim-interdict

Muduviwa and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (18971/2021)

Muduviwa and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (18971/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1586; [2023] 4 All SA 211 (GP) (14 July 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

18971/2021

Judge

De Beer

The High Court set aside Home Affairs’ blocking of identity documents, reinstated the applicants on the population register, and declared their children South African citizens.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Citizenship Determination
• Population Register
• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Procedural Fairness
• Administrative-law

Muduviwa and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another

Muduviwa and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 566; 18971/2021 (14 July 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

18971/2021

Judge

De Beer

The court found that the respondents' decision to block and suspend the applicants' identity documents was invalid, ultra vires, and procedurally unfair. The respondents failed to provide statutory or factual justification for their actions and did not afford the applicants an opportunity to be heard. The children, born in South Africa while the applicants held identity documents, are entitled to South African citizenship. The respondents' version consisted mainly of bare denials and did not create a genuine dispute of fact. Given the delay, lack of proper investigation, and the foregone conc…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Citizenship Determination
• Population Register
• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Procedural Fairness
• Remedies For Unlawful Administration

Moeketsi v Gauteng Tourism Authority and Another (34046/2021)

Moeketsi v Gauteng Tourism Authority and Another (34046/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 743 (28 October 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34046/2021

Judge

DT Skosana

The court found that the MEC was not authorized by any statute or the GTA's disciplinary policy to issue a directive to the Gauteng Tourism Authority to reinstate the applicant or amend its disciplinary policy. The disciplinary process and appeal are governed exclusively by the GTA's internal policy, which does not provide for MEC intervention. The MEC's directive was ultra vires, violated the constitutional principle of legality, and was consequently unlawful. The applicant's reliance on PAJA was misplaced, as employment and labour disputes do not constitute administrative action under PAJA.…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Disciplinary Policy
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Employment Relationship
• Collateral Challenge

Road Traffic Infringement Agency Board v Fines 4 U (Pty) Ltd and Another (30586/2014)

Road Traffic Infringement Agency Board v Fines 4 U (Pty) Ltd and Another (30586/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 140 (5 May 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

30586/2014

Judge

W R C Prinsloo

The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospect of success on bias, irrationality, or remedy in an AARTO review matter.

• Legality Review
• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Bias In Administrative Decision
• Irrationality
• Remedies On Review
• Costs Award

Steyn v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board and Another, Fortuna Trade 162 (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board and Another (51977/11, 52369/11)

Steyn v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board and Another, Fortuna Trade 162 (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Provincial Liquor Board and Another (51977/11, 52369/11) [2011] ZAGPPHC 181 (30 September 2011)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

51977/11, 52369/11

Judge

Fabricius

Consolidated urgent liquor-licensing applications were dismissed as non-urgent and abusive. The court found no exceptional basis for interim relief.

• Moratorium On Liquor Licensing
• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Abuse Of Process
• Interim Relief
• Locus Standi

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC) and Others (JR 1676/2009)

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC) and Others (JR 1676/2009) [2011] ZALCJHB 163 (23 June 2011)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 1676/2009

Judge

A.T. Myburgh

The court found that the Fouries were employed by the municipality during the period 1–17 October 2008, either by virtue of a contract of employment or, alternatively, by satisfying the statutory definition of 'employee' under section 213 of the LRA. The municipality's conduct and communications, including the Jooste recommendation, approval letters, and actions of authorised officials, constituted acceptance of the withdrawal of resignation and reinstatement. The letter of 16 October 2008 from Mr Tumagole was held to be an act of dismissal. The commissioner correctly assumed jurisdiction to…

Source excerpt

• Employment Relationship
• Unfair Dismissal
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Section 213 Definition Of Employee
• Section 186 Dismissal
• Ultra Vires Administrative Action

Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v The City of Cape Town and Others (25/08)

Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v The City of Cape Town and Others (25/08) [2009] ZASCA 85; 2010 (1) SA 333 (SCA) (3 September 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

25/08

Judges

Navsa, Van Heerden, Ponnan, Mhlantla, Wallis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the 1957 administrative approval for the establishment of a township on portion 7 of Oudekraal was invalid from inception due to the non-disclosure of graves and kramats of significant religious and cultural importance. Although there was an unprecedented delay in bringing review proceedings, the court exercised its discretion to disregard the delay, considering the unique circumstances, including the marginalisation of the Muslim community under apartheid, the environmental and heritage value of the land, and the absence of substantial reliance or prejud…

Source excerpt

• Delay Rule In Judicial Review
• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Freedom Of Religion
• Environmental Conservation
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Heritage Protection

Thomas v Commissioner for Civil Aviation (42402/2007)

Thomas v Commissioner for Civil Aviation (42402/2007) [2008] ZAGPHC 418 (29 August 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

42402/2007

Judge

K. Satchwell

The court found that the Civil Aviation Authority acted beyond its powers in purporting to revoke the applicant's instrument rating. The in-house proficiency test conducted by AirQuarius was not equivalent to an instrument rating proficiency test as defined in the Air Navigation Regulations, and there was no evidence that the regulatory requirements for such a test were met. The CAA relied on regulations that did not authorise revocation of a rating, and its subsequent attempt to justify the action under other regulations was misconceived. The procedures followed by the CAA were procedurally…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Procedural Fairness
• Aviation Regulation
• Review Of Administrative Decisions

Oudekraal Estates (PTY) limited v City of Cape Town and Others (7699/01)

Oudekraal Estates (PTY) limited v City of Cape Town and Others (7699/01) [2002] ZAWCHC 36; [2002] 3 All SA 450 (C); 2002 (6) SA 573 (C) (20 June 2002)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7699/01

Judges

Davis, Veldhuizen

The High Court held that Oudekraal’s township approval had lapsed, later extensions were invalid, and registered township rights could not cure the defect.

• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Township Development Rights
• Collateral Challenge
• Delay Rule
• Negative Registration System
• Environmental Protection