South Africa Case Law

Hansa N.O and Others v Ethekwini Municipality and Others (D5113/24)

Hansa N.O and Others v Ethekwini Municipality and Others (D5113/24) [2025] ZAKZDHC 33 (23 May 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D5113/24

Judge

Shapiro AJ

The Municipality acted unlawfully in approving the building plans for the M[...] property. The lowest level of the new dwelling does not qualify as a basement under the statutory definition, as less than 50% of its volume is below natural ground level. The building is functionally a three-storey development, with each storey exceeding the maximum permitted height of 4.5 metres, and thus contravenes town planning controls. The Municipality failed to properly apply its mind to the requirements of section 7(1)(b) of the Act, did not conduct a rational assessment of the impact on neighbouring pro…

Source excerpt

• Building Regulations
• Town Planning Controls
• Judicial Review
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Derogation Of Value
• Interpretation Of Statutes

William Darier t/a Urban Soccer v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (18085/2020)

William Darier t/a Urban Soccer v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (18085/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 829 (13 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

18085/2020

Judge

Nyathi

The High Court held that a municipal lease addendum concluded after termination of the original lease was invalid for non-compliance with procurement law.

• Municipal Procurement
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam
• Self Review
• Lease Agreement Invalidity
• Damages Claim

SA Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Ltd and Another v Motsoeneng and Others (A2022/046784)

SA Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Ltd and Another v Motsoeneng and Others (A2022/046784) [2024] ZAGPJHC 688; [2024] 4 All SA 238 (GJ); 2025 (2) SA 571 (GJ) (30 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2022/046784

Judges

Mudau, Malindi, Wilson

The majority held that a debt to the state arising from an unlawful administrative act only falls due when the act is set aside by a court. Until then, the act stands as a fact and prevents the debt from becoming claimable. The Special Tribunal erred in finding that the repayment claim prescribed when the SABC acquired knowledge of the unlawfulness of the scheme. The correct position, supported by authority, is that prescription only begins to run from the date the administrative act is set aside. However, the court found that ordering repayment by the respondents would not be just and equita…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Self Review
• Just And Equitable Relief
• Personal Liability Of State Officials

Sehole v Kgatelopele Local Municipality and Others (CA&R 27/2024; 1682/2023)

Sehole v Kgatelopele Local Municipality and Others (CA&R 27/2024; 1682/2023) [2024] ZANCHC 68 (26 July 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 27/2024; 1682/2023

Judges

Mamosebo, Stanton

The court found that the applicant was validly appointed by the Municipal Council in terms of section 56(1)(a)(i) of the Municipal Systems Act and that the Municipal Manager lacked authority to terminate his services. The termination was effected without proper process, in bad faith, and without affording the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The respondents' reliance on the MEC's letter and subsequent rescission of the council resolution was misplaced, as the appointment did not require MEC concurrence for validity. The High Court has jurisdiction to review the administrative action unde…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Structures Act
• Appointment And Termination Of Municipal Managers
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Just And Equitable Remedy

Kusainda v University of Limpopo (11854/2023)

Kusainda v University of Limpopo (11854/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 60 (7 June 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

11854/2023

Judge

M Bresler

The court found that the respondent failed to take a final decision on the applicant's review application, amounting to a reviewable administrative omission under PAJA. The refusal to appoint external assessors and the termination of the applicant's registration were procedurally unfair, irrational, and based on a material mistake of fact regarding the applicant's qualifications. The respondent was functus officio regarding the original admission decision, which had not been lawfully reviewed or set aside. The respondent's actions infringed the applicant's constitutional rights to fair admini…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Failure To Take A Decision
• Procedural Fairness
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Declaratory Relief

Afriforum NPC v Abaqulusi Local Municipality and Others (3128/2021)

Afriforum NPC v Abaqulusi Local Municipality and Others (3128/2021) [2024] ZAKZPHC 44 (16 May 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

3128/2021

Judge

Sabela AJ

The High Court reviewed and set aside a municipality’s caretaker forestry appointment for unlawfulness, irrationality, and procedural unfairness under the MFMA.

• Municipal Supply Chain Management
• Legality Review
• Public Asset Disposal
• Irrationality
• Procedural Fairness
• Unlawful Administrative Action

South African Agricultural Machinery Association and Another v Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa and Others (20/44414)

South African Agricultural Machinery Association and Another v Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa and Others (20/44414) [2024] ZAGPJHC 824 (30 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20/44414

Judge

D M Fine

The court found that, on a proper interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), there exists a primary implied power for the Minister to regulate the funding of MIOSA, as adequate funding is necessary for MIOSA to fulfil its statutory functions and achieve the objectives of the CPA. The collateral challenge to the legality of the funding provisions in the Code was dismissed. However, the court held that MIOSA's creation and application of its own categories and formula for calculating contributions were not authorised by the Code and thus unlawful. The Code prescribes specific criteria…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires
• Industry Code Regulation
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Consumer Protection Act
• Ministerial Powers
• Unlawful Administrative Action

Mautla and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others (29459/2021)

Mautla and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others (29459/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1843 (6 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29459/2021

Judges

Opperman, Millar, Ally

The High Court reviewed and set aside RAF directives, notices, and a substituted RAF1 form that imposed extra claim requirements without statutory authority.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Delegation Of Regulatory Power
• Road Accident Fund Claims
• Procedural Fairness
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Road-accident-fund

Council of the University of South Africa v Minister of Higher Education Science and Innovation and Another (076693/2023)

Council of the University of South Africa v Minister of Higher Education Science and Innovation and Another (076693/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1853 (1 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

076693/2023

Judge

Le Grange

The Court found that the Minister's publication in the Government Gazette and appointment of an administrator were in direct breach of the operative order granted by Adams J on 24 August 2023, which expressly prohibited any action pursuant to the independent assessor's report pending finalisation of the urgent and review applications. The Minister's argument that the order was a mere undertaking and not binding was rejected, as the order was made by agreement and incorporated as an order of court, thus enforceable. The Court held that the Council retained locus standi, as the purported dissol…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Joinder Of Parties
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Status Quo Orders

South African Democratic Teachers Union v MEC for Education, Limpopo Province and Others (4277/2019)

South African Democratic Teachers Union v MEC for Education, Limpopo Province and Others (4277/2019) [2023] ZALMPPHC 32 (15 June 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

4277/2019

Judge

SS Mthimkulu

The High Court dismissed a challenge to salary reductions for CTE educators, finding no reviewable administrative decision and non-compliance with PAJA’s 180-day limit.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Salary Reduction
• Review Proceedings
• Contractual Employment
• Administrative-law