South Africa Case Law

Buzza Props 3 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Dekker Brothers (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025/092716)

Buzza Props 3 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Dekker Brothers (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025/092716) [2025] ZAKZPHC 65 (4 July 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

2025/092716

Judge

PC Bezuidenhout

The court held that the Supreme Court of Appeal in Gensigner and Neave CC & Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and 3 others 2025 (4) SA 84 (SCA) is directly applicable. The common law principle that an appeal suspends the operation of the administrative decision applies to appeals under section 12A of the Petroleum Products Act. The Act does not exclude this principle. Therefore, the retail and site licences granted to the respondents by the Controller are suspended pending the Minister's decision on appeal. The urgency was not self-created, as the applicants acted once respond…

Source excerpt

• Petroleum Products Act
• Licensing Suspension On Appeal
• Interim Interdict
• Site And Retail Licence
• Urgency In Application

Nongoma Local Municipality v Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (KwaZulu-Natal) and Others (11032/2024P)

Nongoma Local Municipality v Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (KwaZulu-Natal) and Others (11032/2024P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 83 (31 July 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

11032/2024P

Judge

P C Bezuidenhout

The High Court set aside the MEC’s attempted secondment of municipal officials and suspended the extension dispute, finding the council and MEC acted without proper authority.

• Municipal Systems Act
• Acting Appointments
• Secondment Of Officials
• Ultra Vires Decision
• Intergovernmental Relations
• Urgency In Application

AJ Murphy Flowers (Pty) Ltd v Mogale City Local Municipality (2024/054911)

AJ Murphy Flowers (Pty) Ltd v Mogale City Local Municipality (2024/054911) [2024] ZAGPJHC 549 (10 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/054911

Judge

NH Maenetje

Urgent interim interdict granted to stop Mogale City from disconnecting water and electricity pending disputes over rates, taxes and valuation.

• Interim Interdict
• Municipal Services Disconnection
• Credit Control Measures
• Property Valuation Dispute
• Rates And Taxes
• Urgency In Application

A.M v S.W (7813/2022)

A.M v S.W (7813/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 84 (16 May 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7813/2022

Judge

Lekhuleni

The High Court found an urgent application about child care and contact was not urgent and removed it from the roll, while directing the Family Advocate to investigate.

• Care And Contact Assessment
• Best Interests Of Child
• Urgency In Application
• Appointment Of Expert
• Children S Act
• Mediation In Divorce

Hlazo v OR Tambo District Municipality and Others (1175/2021)

Hlazo v OR Tambo District Municipality and Others (1175/2021) [2021] ZAECMHC 14 (4 May 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1175/2021

Judge

M.S. Jolwana

The court found that the applicant's employment contract was for a fixed term of five years, as evidenced by both the contract and the letter of appointment, and that the reference to a two-year duration in clause 5.1 was a typographical error. The termination of the contract by the respondents was unlawful, as it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the contract and did not comply with section 57(6) of the Municipal Systems Act. The applicant was entitled to reinstatement and payment of outstanding salaries, subject to the statutory limitation that the contract cannot endure beyond on…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Termination
• Specific Performance
• Municipal Manager Contract
• Interpretation Of Employment Contract
• Municipal Systems Act
• Urgency In Application

Jin Sweet Supermarket CC v Miniter of SAPS N.O and Another (UM228/2019)

Jin Sweet Supermarket CC v Miniter of SAPS N.O and Another (UM228/2019) [2020] ZANWHC 16 (9 January 2020)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM228/2019

Judge

R D Hendricks

The court held that SAPS unlawfully searched and seized 17 boxes of cigarettes from Jin Sweet Supermarket without a warrant or valid consent, and ordered their return.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Warrantless Search And Seizure
• Urgency In Application
• Consent In Search
• Restoration Of Possession
• Warrantless-search-and-seizure

Gray Moodliar Inc v Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Another (1347/2019)

Gray Moodliar Inc v Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Another (1347/2019) [2019] ZAECGHC 65; [2019] 10 BLLR 1163 (ECG) (17 June 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1347/2019

Judge

M L Beard

The court found that the council's decision to withdraw all mandates from the applicant was an exercise of public power, not a private contractual right, as it interfered with the public procurement process governed by constitutional and statutory requirements. The decision was based on material mistakes of fact, including incorrect assumptions about the applicant's racial composition and unsubstantiated allegations of overcharging, and was not rationally connected to the stated objectives. The council failed to provide substantiated reasons or conduct proper investigations before acting. The…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Procurement
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Public Power Vs Private Rights
• Urgency In Application
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Rationality Of Decision

South African Social Security Agency and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (CCT48/17)

South African Social Security Agency and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (CCT48/17) [2018] ZACC 26; 2018 (10) BCLR 1291 (CC) (30 August 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 48/17

Judges

Mogoeng, Zondo, Cachalia, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Petse, Theron

The Court found that although SASSA's urgency was self-created and its explanation for the delay was inadequate, the interests of approximately 2.8 million vulnerable grant recipients outweighed the factors against granting a further extension. The principle of justice and equity required the Court to prevent serious prejudice to those dependent on social grants, even at the expense of finality in litigation. The Court held that neither the Minister nor the CEO had acted in bad faith or with gross negligence sufficient to warrant personal costs orders. However, SASSA and its CEO in her offici…

Source excerpt

• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Extension Of Invalidity Suspension
• Personal Costs Liability
• Social Grants
• Urgency In Application
• Supervisory Jurisdiction

Elefterios Polonyfis t/a Little Manhattan v Minister of Safety And Security N.O and Others (2273 / 2015)

Elefterios Polonyfis t/a Little Manhattan v Minister of Safety And Security N.O and Others (2273 / 2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 193 (18 September 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2273 / 2015

Judge

Mbhele

High Court urgent spoliation matter over police seizure of computers and other items; court held the execution exceeded the authorization and ordered return of the goods.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Search And Seizure
• Urgency In Application
• Section 13 7 Saps Act
• Section 20 Criminal Procedure Act
• Mandament-van-spolie

Tlouamma and Others v Mbete, Speaker of the National Assembly of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa and and Another (3236/2015)

Tlouamma and Others v Mbete, Speaker of the National Assembly of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa and and Another (3236/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 22 (27 February 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3236/2015

Judge

Binns-Ward

The Court found that the application for interim relief was properly brought as a matter of urgency, given the imminent parliamentary debate and the refusal of direct access by the Constitutional Court. However, the applicants failed to establish all requirements for an interim interdict. The Court was not persuaded that irreparable harm would result if the interdict was refused, as the applicants could withdraw and re-enlist the motion after the principal relief was determined. The respondent's assurances and the provisions of Rule 102A mitigated the risk of obstruction. Furthermore, the sep…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Powers
• Interim Interdict
• Urgency In Application
• Motion Of No Confidence
• Parliamentary Procedure