South Africa Case Law

Mare and Others v Akarana Home Owners Association and Others (10147/2019)

Mare and Others v Akarana Home Owners Association and Others (10147/2019) [2022] ZAWCHC 20 (28 February 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10147/2019

Judge

E D Wille

Section 30(1)(c) of the Drakenstein Municipality By-Law is not ultra vires or invalid, as a local authority has constitutional and statutory powers to regulate municipal planning, including the appointment of an administrator where necessary. However, the provision must be read down to apply only where the association's dysfunction impedes the municipality's ability to perform its planning functions. In this case, the applicants have not demonstrated that the associations have ceased to function in a manner affecting municipal planning; the disputes are primarily relational and legal, concern…

Source excerpt

• Appointment Of Administrator
• Municipal Land Use Planning
• Ultra Vires Challenge
• Homeowners Association Governance
• Constitutional Interpretation
• Costs Order

Freedom Stationary (Pty) Ltd v Palm Stationary Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd and Mveli Data Matrix Solutions (Pty) Ltd (Joint Venture) and Others (1023/2021)

Freedom Stationary (Pty) Ltd v Palm Stationary Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd and Mveli Data Matrix Solutions (Pty) Ltd (Joint Venture) and Others (1023/2021) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 42 (15 September 2021)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1023/2021

Judge

Roelofse AJ

The High Court held that Rule 49(13) on security for appeal costs is valid, not unconstitutional, and that the first respondent waived security. Costs were awarded against the applicant.

• Security For Costs
• Ultra Vires Challenge
• Access To Court
• Waiver Of Rights
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Constitutional Validity

Workforce Group (Pty) Ltd v Van Zyl NO and Others (D1131/2012)

Workforce Group (Pty) Ltd v Van Zyl NO and Others (D1131/2012) [2015] ZALCD 16; (2015) 36 ILJ 2182 (LC) (20 February 2015)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D1131/2012

Judge

Snyman AJ

The court held that section 62 of the LRA is designed for demarcation disputes, specifically to determine whether parties fall within the scope of a bargaining council or collective agreement. The applicant's challenge was not a demarcation dispute but rather a legality challenge to the collective agreement, which cannot be entertained under section 62. The applicant failed to properly refer a demarcation dispute to the CCMA or challenge the Ministerial extension of the agreement. The arbitrator correctly dismissed the section 62(3A) application, and any irregularity in reasoning did not rend…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement Enforcement
• Demarcation Dispute
• Section 62 Lra
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Costs Award
• Ultra Vires Challenge