South Africa Case Law

HOD: Western Cape Education Department and Others v Equal Education Law Centre and Others (1003/2023)

HOD: Western Cape Education Department and Others v Equal Education Law Centre and Others (1003/2023) [2025] ZASCA 116 (11 August 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1003/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Mbatha, Windell, Bloem, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Rule 53(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court is limited to the production of records relevant to the administrative decision subject to judicial review. The High Court erred by granting an order compelling the Department to produce documents and information unrelated to the specific review relief sought, including materials intended to support declaratory and mandamus claims. Such relief requires separate procedural mechanisms and cannot be obtained through Rule 53. The Department had provided a record sufficient for the review of its placement decisions f…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 53
• Judicial Review
• Right To Education
• Mandamus Relief
• Declaratory Relief
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Sokhela and Another v Magistrate, Ms Letsholo N.O and Others (M235/23)

Sokhela and Another v Magistrate, Ms Letsholo N.O and Others (M235/23) [2025] ZANWHC 82 (6 May 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M235/23

Judges

M Wessels, T Masike

The review application cannot be entertained in the absence of the full record of the proceedings before the Magistrate's Court. The applicants failed to comply with Uniform Rule 53 by not calling upon the Magistrate to dispatch the record, nor did they provide the record themselves, despite having access to the documents as parties to the original proceedings. The written reasons of the Magistrate alone are insufficient for a proper review. The alternative relief of treating the matter as a substantive interdict is untenable, as the application is based on the same facts and parties as the o…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Magistrates Court Decision
• Absence Of Record
• Uniform Rule 53
• Jurisdiction Of High Court

S.M v L.M and Another (81643/2023)

S.M v L.M and Another (81643/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 815 (14 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

81643/2023

Judge

Segal

The High Court held that a notice headed removal did not withdraw a Rule 53 review and postponed the matter sine die to allow opposition.

• Uniform Rule 53
• Domestic Violence Review
• Interim Interdict
• Withdrawal Vs Removal
• Minor Children Welfare
• Rule-53-review

Murray and Others NNO v Ntombela and Others (729/2022)

Murray and Others NNO v Ntombela and Others (729/2022) [2024] ZASCA 24; [2024] 2 All SA 342 (SCA); 2024 (4) SA 95 (SCA) ( (14 March 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

729/2022

Judges

Petse, Mabindla-Boqwana, Molefe, Kathree-Setiloane, Keightley

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a Rule 53 record had to be produced in a review of liquidators’ decision to resile from a property sale, and dismissed the appeal.

• Uniform Rule 53
• Judicial Review
• Liquidation Procedure
• Specific Performance
• Concursus Creditorum
• Rule-53-record

Maximum Profit Recovery (Pty) Ltd v Mogalakwena Local Municipality and Others (13528/2022)

Maximum Profit Recovery (Pty) Ltd v Mogalakwena Local Municipality and Others (13528/2022) [2023] ZALMPPHC 111 (14 November 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

13528/2022

Judge

Mokwena

The High Court upheld a non-joinder point in a tender review, finding all successful panel bidders had a direct and substantial interest in the relief sought.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Review Of Tender Award
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Uniform Rule 53
• Non-joinder
• Tender-review

Pityana v ABSA Group Limited and Others

Pityana v ABSA Group Limited and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 342; 2024 (1) SA 491 (GP) (10 May 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64258 / 2021

Judge

M Snyman, AJ

The court held that Rule 53 does not apply to a Companies Act section 71(5) review of a board’s director-removal decision, which is not administrative action.

• Removal Of Director
• Companies Act Section 71
• Uniform Rule 53
• Administrative Action Definition
• Common Law Review
• Rule-53

Nqayana v Ndengezi and Another (1674/2022)

Nqayana v Ndengezi and Another (1674/2022) [2023] ZAECMHC 24 (21 April 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1674/2022

Judge

JE Smith

The High Court ordered a magistrate to provide a Rule 53 record for review proceedings and awarded costs against the second respondent for unnecessary opposition.

• Uniform Rule 53
• Compelling Production Of Record
• Costs Award
• Uniform-rule-53
• Review-record-production
• Civil-procedure-costs

Special Investigating Unit and Another v LNG Scientific (Pty) Ltd (GP03/2022)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v LNG Scientific (Pty) Ltd (GP03/2022) [2022] ZAST 15 (29 June 2022)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP03/2022

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Tribunal held that Uniform Rule 53 does not apply to self-review applications brought by organs of State such as the SIU and the MEC: Gauteng Department of Health. The review application was properly brought under Tribunal Rule 10, and the respondents are not obliged to deliver a record of the impugned decision in terms of Uniform Rule 53(1)(b). LNG Scientific (Pty) Ltd is not prejudiced by the procedure adopted, as the respondents have tendered discovery of relevant documents under Tribunal Rule 17(4) read with Uniform Rule 35(13), (1), and (2). The Tribunal specified that discovery shou…

Source excerpt

• Self Review
• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Uniform Rule 53
• Special Tribunals Act
• Access To Record
• Costs In Interlocutory Applications

Are Direng Transport and Labour Hire and Another v Rustenburg Local Municipality and Others (UM190/2020)

Are Direng Transport and Labour Hire and Another v Rustenburg Local Municipality and Others (UM190/2020) [2022] ZANWHC 24 (21 June 2022)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM190/2020

Judge

A H Petersen

The applicants failed to establish any reviewable decision by the first respondent regarding the appointment of a service provider under the relevant tender, as no such appointment occurred. The extension of the second respondent's appointment was lawfully executed through a deviation in terms of applicable regulations. The first respondent properly considered, evaluated, and adjudicated the tender, but resolved not to appoint a service provider for valid reasons. The applicants' procedural conduct was deficient, including failure to file heads of argument, improper use of discovery procedure…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Supply Chain Management
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Tender Irregularities
• Punitive Costs
• Uniform Rule 53

Lerostyle (Pty) Ltd v MEC: Free State Provincial Government: Department of Education and Others (4699/2020)

Lerostyle (Pty) Ltd v MEC: Free State Provincial Government: Department of Education and Others (4699/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 45 (4 March 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4699/2020

Judges

Mathebula, De Kock

The court granted an interlocutory application compelling the respondents to file the review record and reasons under Rule 53, rejecting objections based on standing, mootness and non-joinder.

• Uniform Rule 53
• Judicial Review
• Locus Standi
• Mootness
• Non Joinder
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act