South Africa Case Law

Pilisanani Trading Enterprise 50 CC v Information Regulator (South Africa) and Others (D1269/2022)

Pilisanani Trading Enterprise 50 CC v Information Regulator (South Africa) and Others (D1269/2022) [2025] ZAKZDHC 45 (16 July 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D1269/2022

Judge

Olsen

The court held that the Information Regulator's refusal to condone the late submission of the applicant's complaint was reasonable and not reviewable. The applicant failed to provide a full and persuasive explanation for the delay, particularly for the period after it became aware of the legislative requirements. The applicant's ignorance of the law, especially given its legal representation, was not a sufficient excuse. Furthermore, the request for access to records was fatally defective for failing to identify the underlying right to be exercised or protected, as required by PAIA. The Regul…

Source excerpt

• Condonation Of Late Filing
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Failure To Exhaust Internal Remedies
• Unreasonableness
• Irrationality

Allcopy Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Phillips (00001/2024)

Allcopy Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Phillips (00001/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 209; 2025 (4) SA 523 (GP) (7 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

00001/2024

Judge

GN Moshoana

The Tribunal found that the applicants had established the requirements under section 33(3) of the Copyright Act: they require a licence, the copyright holder refused to grant it, and the circumstances make the refusal unreasonable. The Tribunal held that the refusal by the respondent was an abuse of monopoly rights and that the applicants' claim was well-founded. The ongoing demand from schools, the inability of schools to replace textbooks annually, and the history of collaboration and joint authorship all supported the applicants' entitlement to a compulsory licence. The Tribunal declared…

Source excerpt

• Compulsory Licence
• Copyright Act Section 33
• Refusal To Grant Licence
• Unreasonableness
• Joint Authorship
• Declaratory Order

Olympic Park Trading 126 (Pty) Ltd t/a SKG Properties v Skhosana and Others (JR2360/22)

Olympic Park Trading 126 (Pty) Ltd t/a SKG Properties v Skhosana and Others (JR2360/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 263 (28 June 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2360/22

Judge

Whittington

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a CCMA award after finding the commissioner failed to apply his mind to material facts and relied on unsupported findings.

• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Gross Irregularity
• Unreasonableness
• Dismissal For Misconduct
• Code Of Good Practice
• Procedural Fairness

Valobex 173 CC v Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development, Gauteng Provincial Government and Another (19803/2021)

Valobex 173 CC v Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development, Gauteng Provincial Government and Another (19803/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 83 (2 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19803/2021

Judge

DN Unterhalter

The court found that both the HOD and MEC decisions were irrational, unlawful, and unreasonable because they failed to engage with the expert evidence showing that the wetland on the development site was so critically modified that it no longer possessed any ecological value. The decisions relied solely on the technical classification of the site as a wetland, without substantiating its environmental value, and imposed conditions that prevented development to protect something that did not require protection. The court held that there was no factual basis for the restrictive conditions and th…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Environmental Authorisation
• Irrationality
• Substitution Of Administrative Action
• Wetland Protection
• Unreasonableness

Jordan v Education Labour Relations Council and Others (PR372/18)

Jordan v Education Labour Relations Council and Others (PR372/18) [2021] ZALCPE 5; [2021] 8 BLLR 820 (LC); (2021) 42 ILJ 2227 (LC) (16 April 2021)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

PR372/18

Judge

Z Lallie

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for her delay in filing the review application, primarily due to her attorneys' lack of diligence, and that she actively pursued her rights. The applicant's prospects of success were relevant and supported by her averments. On the merits, the second respondent failed to properly consider the applicant's representations for reinstatement as required by section 14(2) of the Employment of Educators Act. Instead of assessing whether the applicant had shown good cause for reinstatement, the second respondent merely reiterated the…

Source excerpt

• Condonation Of Late Filing
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Reinstatement
• Employment Of Educators Act
• Failure To Apply Mind
• Unreasonableness

Sawmilling South Africa v Department of Environmental Affairs and Another (28608/2019)

Sawmilling South Africa v Department of Environmental Affairs and Another (28608/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 118 (22 February 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28608/2019

Judge

Tolmay

The court found that the Minister's decision to include indirectly fired kilns in sub-category 9.5 of the 2018 regulations was irrational, as there was no scientific evidence that such kilns emit significant harmful pollutants. The Minister failed to justify the regulation with relevant evidence, rendering the decision arbitrary and not rationally connected to the purpose of protecting the environment. The public consultation process was procedurally unfair because the final regulation differed from the draft on which comments were solicited, denying interested parties a meaningful opportunit…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Irrationality Review
• Procedural Fairness
• Unreasonableness
• Air Quality Regulation
• Double Regulation

Ngcamphalala v University of Mpumalanga and Others (2307/2018)

Ngcamphalala v University of Mpumalanga and Others (2307/2018) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 31 (18 March 2020)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

2307/2018

Judge

Mashile

The court found that the university failed to afford the applicant an opportunity to present his case at the disciplinary hearing, violating the audi alteram partem rule. The expulsion decision was not rationally connected to the evidence, as the applicant acted within his mandate as SRC President and did not instigate unlawful protests. The university's own Statute and Constitution recognize the SRC's role, and the evidence did not support the conclusion that the applicant was solely responsible for the protests. The disciplinary committee's eagerness to proceed in the applicant's absence, d…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Irrationality
• Unreasonableness
• Student Discipline
• University Governance

Zest Polyurethanes (Pty) Limited v Minister of Trade & Industry (15216/2017)

Zest Polyurethanes (Pty) Limited v Minister of Trade & Industry (15216/2017) [2019] ZAWCHC 14 (20 February 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15216/2017

Judge

P A Myburgh

The High Court reviewed and set aside the dti’s refusal to pay an approved MCEP grant, holding that it wrongly relied on incorrect employee figures.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Grant Application Review
• Exercise Of Discretion
• Irrelevant Considerations
• Unreasonableness
• Manufacturing Competitiveness Enhancement Programme

Minister of Police v National Commissioner of Police and Others (JA42/2017)

Minister of Police v National Commissioner of Police and Others (JA42/2017) [2018] ZALAC 58 (7 June 2018)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA42/2017

Judges

Murphy, Waglay, Jappie

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 158(1)(h) of the LRA clearly empowers the Labour Court to review decisions of disciplinary hearing chairpersons at the instance of the State as employer. The Labour Court erred in finding that the State lacked standing to review its own functionaries. The chairperson's decision to discharge the employee was unreasonable and unlawful, as it failed to require the employee to testify and improperly accepted the employee's version put in cross-examination as sufficient evidence. The disciplinary hearing was not conducted in accordance with fairness and le…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Disciplinary Hearing
• Unreasonableness
• Procedural Fairness

Minister of Police and Another v Kgopa and Another (JA42/2017)

Minister of Police and Another v Kgopa and Another (JA42/2017) [2018] ZALAC 45; [2019] 1 BLLR 16 (LAC) (7 June 2018)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA42/2017

Judges

JR Murphy, B Waglay, A Jappie

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 158(1)(h) of the LRA clearly empowers the Labour Court to review decisions of chairpersons at disciplinary hearings at the instance of the employer, where the State is the employer. The Labour Court's finding that the State lacks standing to review its own functionaries was incorrect in law and contradicted established precedent. Furthermore, the chairperson's decision to discharge the employee was unreasonable and illegal, as it failed to require the employee to testify in response to prima facie evidence of misconduct and improperly accepted the emp…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Disciplinary Hearing
• Section 158 1 H Lra
• Unreasonableness
• Procedural Fairness