South Africa Case Law

Central African Road Services v The Minister of Transport and Another (62873/2014)

Central African Road Services v The Minister of Transport and Another (62873/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 56 (28 February 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

62873/2014

Judge

R G Tolmay

The court found that the Minister complied with the statutory requirement to consult the Board prior to promulgating the 2014 Regulations. The consultation process, which included meetings, memoranda, and stakeholder engagement, afforded the Board an opportunity to convey its views, and those views were given fair consideration. The fact that the Minister met with Board emissaries rather than the full Board was not fatal, as the process reflected significant interaction and genuine consultation. Regarding Regulations 7(5) and (6), the court held that section 51(a) does not restrict the Minist…

Source excerpt

• Consultation Requirement
• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Void For Vagueness
• Permit Fee Structure
• Constitutional Review

Mulowayi and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT249/18)

Mulowayi and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT249/18) [2019] ZACC 1; 2019 (4) BCLR 496 (CC) (29 January 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 249/18

Judges

Mogoeng, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Petse, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that declarations of invalidity concerning regulations are not subject to confirmation by the Court. The High Court erred in suspending its declaration of invalidity of regulation 3(2)(a), as such suspension is unnecessary and perpetuates the applicants' statelessness. The regulation was ultra vires the empowering statute, which prescribes a five-year residency requirement, not ten years. The applicants are entitled to effective relief, and the suspension order must be set aside. Condonation and leave to appeal were granted in the interests of justice, given the…

Source excerpt

• Citizenship By Naturalisation
• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Statelessness
• Child Rights
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Yeoville Bellevue Ratepayer's Association and Another v MEC for the Department of Economic Development Gauteng Provisional Government and Others (07129/2014)

Yeoville Bellevue Ratepayer's Association and Another v MEC for the Department of Economic Development Gauteng Provisional Government and Others (07129/2014) [2017] ZAGPJHC 322 (1 November 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

07129/2014

Judge

K E Matojane

The High Court set aside Gauteng shebeen licence regulations for lack of public participation and held they were ultra vires, suspending invalidity for two years.

• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Public Participation
• Liquor Licensing
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Ultra-vires-regulation
• Public-participation

Mostert NO v Registrar of Pension Funds and Others (986/2016)

Mostert NO v Registrar of Pension Funds and Others (986/2016) [2017] ZASCA 108; 2018 (2) SA 53 (SCA) (15 September 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

986/2016

Judges

Lewis, Saldulker, Tsoka, Gorven, Ploos van Amstel

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the review application was not instituted within the 180-day period prescribed by section 7(1) of PAJA. The delay between the promulgation of regulation 35(4) and the institution of review proceedings was approximately 12 years, which is manifestly outside the statutory period. The appellant did not apply for an extension under section 9 nor provide evidence to justify the delay. The court confirmed that it may raise the issue of delay mero motu and that respondents may argue the time-bar even if not pleaded, as the court's jurisdiction is at stake. The t…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review Time Bar
• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Condonation For Late Review

Maxime Hotel (Pty) Limited and Another v Chairperson: National Gambling Board NO and Others (A94/2015)

Maxime Hotel (Pty) Limited and Another v Chairperson: National Gambling Board NO and Others (A94/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 648 (2 June 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A94/2015

Judges

Molopa-Sethosa, C P Rabie, P M Mabuse

The court held that the appellants' application was correctly dismissed by the court a quo on the basis that the relief sought was moot and academic. Even if regulation 3(2) were declared invalid, regulation 3(1) would remain, limiting the number of limited pay-out machines to five, and thus the appellants would not be entitled to the licence they sought. The appellants failed to properly set out their case in their founding affidavit, and their attempt to introduce new points on appeal was prejudicial to the respondents, as these points were neither canvassed in the court a quo nor covered i…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Licensing Authority
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Constitutional Review
• Mootness
• Procedural Fairness

Mostert v Registrar of Pension Funds and Others (07352/2015)

Mostert v Registrar of Pension Funds and Others (07352/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 209; [2016] 4 All SA 131 (GJ) (24 June 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

07352/2015

Judge

Van der Linde

The court held the PAJA review of regulation 35(4) was time-barred and, in any event, dismissed the challenge on the merits.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review
• Time Bar
• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Contingency Reserve Account
• Administrative-law

Maxime Hotel (Pty) Ltd and Another v Chairperson: National Gambling Board N.O and Others (70868/2012)

Maxime Hotel (Pty) Ltd and Another v Chairperson: National Gambling Board N.O and Others (70868/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 121 (20 March 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

70868/2012

Judge

N Kollapen

The court held that the applicants misconceived their remedy by launching a constitutional challenge to regulation 3(2) without first exhausting administrative remedies under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). The applicants did not face the threat of coercive state action and thus were not entitled to bring a collateral challenge. The relief sought was also moot and academic, as striking down regulation 3(2) would leave regulation 3(1) intact, which limits provincial licensing authorities to issuing licenses for up to five limited payout machines per site. The application wa…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Provincial Licensing Authority
• Concurrent Legislative Competence
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Constitutional Challenge
• Declaratory Relief

South African Dental Association NPC v Minister of Health and Others (69766/11)

South African Dental Association NPC v Minister of Health and Others (69766/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 197 (7 March 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

69766/11

Judge

Ismail

The High Court dismissed a review of dental assistant regulations, holding the challenge was out of time under PAJA and could not bypass PAJA via legality.

• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Judicial Review Under Paja
• Condonation For Delay
• Locus Standi
• Ministerial Powers
• Health Professions Regulation

T.L.E. (Pty) Ltd v Master of the High Court, South Gauteng High Court and Others (2011/21387)

T.L.E. (Pty) Ltd v Master of the High Court, South Gauteng High Court and Others (2011/21387) [2011] ZAGPJHC 238; 2012 (2) SA 502 (GSJ) (22 November 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2011/21387

Judge

Rautenbach

The court found that regulation CM101(5), which permits the Master to authorise provisional payment of liquidator remuneration before account confirmation, is ultra vires the Companies Act 61 of 1973. The Act provides a transparent process for liquidation and distribution accounts, including inspection and objection rights for creditors, which regulation CM101(5) circumvents. The court held that such a significant payment to liquidators without creditor notification or opportunity to object undermines statutory protections and cannot be justified by subordinate legislation. Even if the regula…

Source excerpt

• Liquidator Remuneration
• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Creditor Rights
• Companies Act 1973

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Cable City (Pty) Ltd (232/08)

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Cable City (Pty) Ltd (232/08) [2009] ZASCA 87; [2010] 1 All SA 1 (SCA); 2010 (3) SA 589 (SCA); 72 SATC 285 (10 September 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

232/08

Judges

Brand, Cloete, Jafta, Maya, Hurt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that paragraph 11(1) of Government Notice R340, which authorized councils to estimate levies, was ultra vires the empowering provisions of section 12 of the Regional Services Councils Act 109 of 1985. The Act requires levies to be calculated mathematically, and only the Commissioner for Inland Revenue is empowered to estimate or determine levy liability and instruct councils to assess levies. The Minister did not have authority to permit councils to estimate levies without objective data. The respondent was entitled to raise a collateral challenge to the valid…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Regional Services Levy
• Ministerial Powers
• Collateral Challenge
• Constitutional Validity
• Levy Assessment