JUDGMENT: Delivered on 04 September 2008
|
|
- Aubrie Sherman
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (VENDA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: CASE NO. 15/2008 RECKSON RAVHAUTSHENI SUMBANA MPHAPHULI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL First Applicant Second Applicant VHO-THOVHELE PHASWANA MUSHWA MPHAPHULI Third Applicant and HEAD OF DEPARMENT: PUBLIC WORKS LIMPOPO PROVINCE First Respondent PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF LIMPOPO [DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS) Second Respondent MEMBER OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC WORKS [LIMPOPO PROVINCE] Third Respondent THULAMELA MUNICIPALITY Fourth Respondent JUDGMENT: Delivered on 04 September 2008 SNYMAN AJ [1] The applicants apply for an order directing the respondents to grant access to the records referred to in the applicants' request for access to information dated 5 December 2007 in terms of the provisions of section 18(1) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, No.2 of 2000 and for an order as to
2 costs on a scale as between attorney and own client. The four respondents are opposing the application. judgment was reserved. The matter was heard on 21 August 2008 and [2] The applicants, through their attorneys, on 5 December 2007 requested access to certain records from the second and fourth respondents in terms of the provisions of section 18 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, No, 2 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and it is common cause that the second and fourth respondents did not provide the applicants with a decision on this request. As a result hereof, the applicants then, without following the internal appeal procedure referred to in section 74 of the Act, brought this application which was issued by the registrar on 16 January The fourth respondent filed its answering affidavit on 15 February 2008 and raised a point in limine to the effect that, since the applicants did not pursue the internal appeal procedure, the applicants are in terms of the provisions of section 78(1) of the Act precluded from approaching a court for relief. The first, second and third respondents filed their answering affidavit on 4 June 2008 and also raised the point in limine aforesaid. [3] In argument, counsel for the fourth respondent Mr. Cook SC, submitted that the internal appeal procedure and the provisions of section 78 of the Act are mandatory and that the applicants should therefore have followed the internal appeal procedure against the deemed refusal of their request, before launching these proceedings. Mr Sikhwari on behalf of the first, second and third respondents, adopted a similar argument. In view hereof, the four respondents submitted that the applicants' application should be dismissed with costs. [4] In argument, counsel for the applicants Mr. Lebala, made the following submissions:
3 (a) that, in view of the provisions of section 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, No. 108 of 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), section 27 of the Act seems to contradict the provisions of section 32 of the Constitution, that there is a conflict between the Constitution and the Act and that section 27 of the Act is unconstitutional; (b) that the provision in section 25(3)(c) of the Act to the effect that a requestor may lodge an internal appeal or an application with a court, is contradictory to the provisions of section 74 and 78 of the Act; (c) that the conduct of the respondents is a violation of the Constitution and because it is an administrative action, it does not matter what section 74 or 78 of the Act stipulates and that one has only to look at the conduct of Government; (d) that this Court has a discretion to exempt the applicants from exhausting the internal appeal remedy there being exceptional circumstances and if deemed in the interests of justice. (e) that there is a discretion to condone non-compliance with the provisions of section 78 of the Act as they are not mandatory, where the use of the remedy is discretionary. [5] On the facts in casu, counsel for the parties could not refer me to any authority regarding the provisions of section 78 (read with section 74) of the Act,
4 [6] The long title to the Act states that the Act was enacted: "To give effect to the constitutional right of access to any information held by the State and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights, and to provide for matters connected therewith". The preamble recognises the Act's need to give effect to the right in section 32 of the Constitution and, subject to reasonable and justifiable limitation under section 36 of the Constitution, the need to foster transparency and accountability in public and private bodies. [7] The objects of the Act are set out in section 9, and the relevant parts thereof insofar as this application is concerned, are: "(a) to give effect to the constitutional right of access to - (i) any information held by the State, and (b) (c) (d) to establish voluntary and mandatory mechanisms or procedures to give effect to that right in a manner which enables persons to obtain access to records of public and private bodies as swiftly, inexpensively and effortlessly as reasonably possible; (e) " [8] In CASU, it is common cause that the respondents (and then in particular the second and fourth respondents) are public bodies as defined in paragraph (a) of the definition of "public body" in section 1 of the Act - the said paragraph (a) refers to "any department of state or administration in the national or provincial sphere of government or any municipality in the local sphere of government". At this stage I must stress that there are
5 two different categories of public bodies, namely those defined in paragraph (a) and those defined in paragraph (b) of the definition of "public body" in section 1 of the Act, and different procedures as to an internal appeal and applications to a court apply to these two categories of public bodies. [9] In Part 4 Chapter 2 (sections 78-82) of the Act applications to court are regulated. The heading of Chapter 2 reads; "Applications to Court". For purposes of this judgment the provisions of section 78(1) and (2) of the Act are applicable, and the relevant parts thereof read as follows: "78. Applications regarding decisions of information officers or relevant authorities of public bodies or heads of private bodies. - (1) A requester or third party referred to in section 74 may only apply to a court for appropriate relief in terms of section 82 after that requester or third party has exhausted the internal appeal procedure against a decision of the information officer of a public body provided for in section 74. (2) A requester - (a) (b) (c) (d) that has been unsuccessful in an internal appeal to the relevant authority of a public body; aggrieved by a decision of the information officer of a public body referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of "public body" in section 1 - (1) to refuse a request for access; or (ii) may, by way of an application, within 30 days apply to a court for appropriate relief in terms of section 82."
6 [10] Section 78(1) of the Act refers to a requester referred to in section 74 of the Act, and it is apposite to quote this section: "74. Right of internal appeal to relevant authority. - (1) A requester may lodge an internal appeal against a decision of the information officer of a public body referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of "public body" in section 1 - (a) to refuse a request for access; (b) " It is important to also note that the heading to this section reads: "Internal appeals against decisions of information officers of certain (my emphasis) public bodies". From the wording of this heading and the wording of section 74(1) of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the provisions of the section are only applicable where there was a refusal of access by an information officer of a public body referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition, and not in regard to a public body referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of "public body". This section confers a right of appeal to the relevant authority to a requester that is not satisfied with a decision refusing access, and such requestor may (if he so wishes) appeal against such decision. [11] The wording of section 78(1) of the Act is in my view very clear and unambiguous, and can have only one meaning: where a public body referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of "public body" is involved, a requester may only apply to a court for appropriate relief after that requester has exhausted the internal appeal procedure provided for in section 74 of the Act, This provision is clearly mandatory and there is no room for a finding that it is either only permissive or discretionary. Apart from a finding that the words used are per se mandatory, the provisions of section 78(2)(a) of the Act provide further
7 substantiation for the fact that the said provisions are indeed mandatory: the said section 78(2)(a) provides that if a requester has been unsuccessful in an internal appeal, such requester may apply to a court for relief. A further indication that these provisions are mandatory where a public body referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition is involved, is the fact that, where a public body referred to in paragraph(b) of the definition is involved, there is no provision for an internal appeal and an aggrieved requester may approach a court directly in terms of the provisions of section 78(2)(c) of the Act. [12] In view of all the aforegoing I therefore find that the provisions of section 78(1) of the Act are mandatory insofar as a public body referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of "public body" in section 1 of the Act, is concerned. [13] In view of the finding aforesaid, Mr. Lebala's submission that there is a discretion to condone non-compliance with the provisions of section 78(1) of the Act as they are not mandatory cannot therefore be upheld. [14] Mr. Lebala's submission that the conduct of the respondents is a violation of the Constitution and because it is an administrative action, it does not matter what section 74 or 78 of the Act stipulates and that one has only to look at the conduct of Government, is in my view without any legal foundation, for the following reasons: there is absolutely no evidence that the conduct of the respondents in any way whatsoever violated the Constitution. The mere fact that the respondents adopted an alleged "passive" conduct does not mean that they violated the applicants' right to access to information. The respondents (and then in particular the second and fourth respondents) did not provide the applicants with a decision on their request for access, but such conduct is not contrary to the provisions of the Act; section 27 of the Act clearly states that if
8 an information officer fails to give a decision within the period contemplated in section 25(1), the information officer is, for the purposes of the Act, regarded as having refused the request. This is exactly what transpired in casu and there is no room for a finding that the respondents violated the Constitution, and it follows that the provisions of section 74 and 78 of the Act cannot be disregarded. Furthermore, in my view, the alleged conduct is irrelevant as far as this application is concerned; the applicants may raise the "passive" conduct as a reason or ground for any internal appeal to the relevant authority, if they so wish. Mr. Lebala's aforesaid submission cannot therefore be upheld. [15] Mr. Lebala submitted that this Court has a discretion to exempt the applicants from any requirement to exhaust internal remedies, in exceptional circumstances and if deemed in the interests of justice. He further submitted that an interpretation envisaged by the fourth respondent to say the applicants should exhaust internal remedies would unjustifiably limit their rights in terms of section 34 of the Constitution to have justifiable disputes resolved by Courts of law, and he referred to the decision in Earthlife Africa (Cape Town) v Director - General: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Another 2005(3) SA 156 at par.44. Mr. Cook SC argued that the refusal of the information officer in casu is not an administrative action and referred me to the definition of "administrative action" and in particular to paragraph (hh) thereof, in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, No. 3 of 2000 (PAJA) and he submitted that the provisions of this Act are not applicable to the present application. In section 1 of the aforesaid Act "administrative action" is defined, inter alia, as any decision taken, or any failure to take a decision by an organ of state, but does not include, and I quote: "any decision taken, or failure to take a decision, in terms of the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2000;" The provisions of PAJA are therefore not applicable to the present
9 application, and this Court cannot therefore consider an order contemplated in section 7(2)(c) of PAJA. The decision in Earthlife supra and relied upon by Mr. Lebala, dealt with PAJA (and in particular with section 7(2)(c) thereof), but this decision is not applicable to the present application. Furthermore, in my view there is no provision in the Act which empowers a court to exempt a requester from exhausting the internal appeal procedure, and in view hereof and in view of my finding that the provisions of section 78(1) of the Act are mandatory, I have no discretion to exempt the applicants from exhausting the internal appeal procedure. [16] It is noteworthy that in their notice of motion the applicants did not ask for an order condoning the non-compliance with the provisions of section 78 and/or for an order exempting them from exhausting the internal appeal procedure. On the contrary, the applicants' attitude was that 'there was no need for an internal appeal to be lodged" (see par on p. 13 of the paginated papers). It was only during argument when the question of exemption and condonation were raised. [17] Mr. Lebala further submitted that the provision in section 25(3)(c) of the Act to the effect that a requester may lodge an internal appeal or an application with a court, is contradictory to the provisions of section 74 and 78 of the Act. This submission cannot be upheld for the following reason: Section 25(3) reads as follows: "If the request for access is refused, the notice in terms of subsection (1)(b) must- (a) (b) (c) state that the requester may lodge an internal appeal or an application with a court, as the case may be, against the refusal of the request, and the procedure
10 (including the period) for lodging the internal appeal or application, as the case may be". The provisions of subsection (c) are very clear: if one has regard to the totality of this subsection, and in particular to the words "as the case may be", it is clear that the purpose of this subsection is to inform a particular requester whether he may lodge an internal appeal, "as the case may be", that is where a public body referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition is involved or apply to a court where the said public body is not a public body referred to in the said paragraph (a) of the definition and the procedure (including the period for the lodgement of the internal appeal or the application) to be followed. This means that the said notice must, inter alia, refer to the provisions of section 74, 78(1) and 78(2) of the Act. There is in my view no room whatsoever for a finding that the provisions of section 25(3)(c) are contradictory to the provisions of section 74 and 78. [18] The applicants in casu cannot in any event rely on the provisions of section 25(3)(c) of the Act. This section is only applicable where there is a de facto refusal of a request and not where there is a deemed refusal in terms of the provisions of section 27 of the Act, This is apparent from the provisions of section 25(3)(c) read with the provisions of section 25(1)(b) - an information officer must give notice in terms of this section (where there is a de facto refusal), and such notice means notice in writing (see the definition of "notice" in section 1 of the Act). There was in casu a deemed refusal in terms of the provisions of section 27 of the Act and it follows that there was no notice as is envisaged in section 25. [19] Mr. Lebala's submission referred to in par. [4] (a) supra cannot be upheld, for the following reasons: section 27 of the Act does not contradict the provisions of section 32 of the Constitution. Section 27 does not at all have any
11 effect on a person's right to information that is entrenched in section 32 of the Constitution. Section 27 provides only for a deemed refusal of a request and surely a refusal, whether it be a deemed refusal or a de facto refusal, can never per se deny a person his right of access to information. If a requester's request is refused, such requester still has the right of an internal appeal or application to a court (as the case may be) if he is not satisfied with the refusal of his request. Section 27 cannot amount to a denial of access to information and is therefore not contradicting section 32 of the Constitution. Furthermore, it seems as if the Legislature, by stipulating that if the information officer fails to give a decision within the period contemplated in section 25(1) of the Act (30 days), the said officer is regarded as having refused the request, intended in enacting section 27 to eliminate unfounded/unnecessary delays in the finalization of a request-this is in accordance with the objects of the Act as stipulated in section 9(d) to enable persons to obtain access as "swiftly" as possible. There is therefore also no room for a finding that section 27 of the Act is unconstitutional. [20] The objects, and purpose, of the Act are in essence to establish voluntary and mandatory mechanisms or procedures to give effect to the constitutional right of access to information (section 9 of the Act); the provisions of the Act, and then in particular the provisions of section 27, 74 and 78 referred to in casu, do not in any way whatsoever limit and/or impair such constitutional right. It is abundantly clear that the Act provides for mechanisms or procedures in terms whereof a person should exercise his constitutional right of access to information.
12 [21] On the facts in casu, where the respondents (and then in particular the second and fourth respondents) are public bodies referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of "public body" in section 1 of the Act, the provisions of section 78(1) of the Act are mandatory, and the applicants could therefore only have approached this Court after they have exhausted the internal appeal procedure provided for in section 74. The applicants did not exhaust the said internal appeal procedure, their application is therefore premature and cannot be entertained. It follows that the applicants' application should be dismissed. [22] As far as the costs of the application is concerned, there are no grounds to justify a departure from the general rule that success carries costs. [23] In the result, the following order is made: the applicants' application is dismissed with costs. MM SNYMAN ACTING JUDGE OF THE VENDA HIGH COURT Anton Ramaano Attorneys Counsel: Adv SM Lebala State Attorney Counsel: Adv MS Sikhwari for the Applicants for the 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents Themba Mabasa Attorneys c/o Mathobo, Rambau & Sigogo Inc. Counsel: Adv AO Cook SC for the 4 th Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION: GRAHAMSTOWN)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION: GRAHAMSTOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO. EL 1544/12 CASE NO. ECD 3561/12 REPORTABLE EVALUATIONS ENHANCED PROPERTY APPRAISALS (PTY)
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: THULAMELA MUNICIPALITY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER: THULAMELA MUNICIPALITY Not Reportable Case no: 78/2014 FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) LONDOLOZA FORESTRY CONSORTIUM (PTY) LTD PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED
UNREPORTABLE In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No: 28738/2006 Date heard: 25 & 26 /10/2007 Date of judgment: 12/05/2008 LONDOLOZA FORESTRY CONSORTIUM
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) CASE NO: 16572/2018 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO IN THE MATIER BETWEEN : SOLIDARITY APPLICANT
More informationNELSON MANDELA BAY MUNICIPALITY JUDGMENT. [1] At issue in this application is whether a fixed contract of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION PORT ELIZABETH Case No: 1479/14 In the matter between NELSON MANDELA BAY MUNICIPALITY Applicant and ISRAEL TSATSIRE Respondent JUDGMENT REVELAS
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ERIC THOBILE MDYESHA APPLICANT
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT PARTIES: ERIC THOBILE MDYESHA APPLICANT And THE MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY FIRST RESPONDENT THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN ENSEMBLE TRADING 535 (PTY) LTD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case No.: 4875/2014 ENSEMBLE TRADING 535 (PTY) LTD Applicant and MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY SIBONGILE
More information64/ REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) Case no: 38791/2011. In the matter between:
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (1) REPORTABLE: YES / (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/fc^ (3) REVISED. yp 64/ Date it;- IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) Case no: 38791/2011 In
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) APPEAL CASE NO : A5044/09 DATE: 18/08/2010 In the matter between:
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) APPEAL CASE NO : A5044/09 DATE: 18/08/2010 In the matter between: HENRY GEORGE DAVID COCHRANE Appellant (Respondent a quo) and THE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, BISHO) CASE NO. 593/2014 In the matter between: UNATHI MYOLI SIYANDA NOBHATYI
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, BISHO) CASE NO. 593/2014 In the matter between: UNATHI MYOLI SIYANDA NOBHATYI 1 st Applicant 2 nd Applicant And THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) THE REGISTRAR OF THE HEAL TH PROFESSIONS COUNCIL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: Y,E'S/ ) (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Y,Ji.S@ (3) REVISED f DATE /4 /tr r ;}c,1"1 ~--+----
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 162/10 In the matter between: THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE and SAIRA ESSA PRODUCTIONS CC SAIRA ESSA MARK CORLETT
More informationMETROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: 611/2017 Date heard: 02 November 2017 Date delivered: 05 December 2017 In the matter between: NEO MOERANE First Applicant VUYANI
More information7 01 THE WORKFORCE GROUP (PTY) (LTD) A...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA Case number 57110/2011 In the matter of THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR THE COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER First Applicant
More informationAlternative Dispute Resolution Guidelines of the Companies Tribunal
Alternative Dispute Resolution Guidelines of the Companies Tribunal In terms of REG 4 (2) of the Companies Act, 71 of 2008 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD BY THE CHAIRPERSON 1. MEANING 2. PREAMBLE 3. PURPOSE
More informationEASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: MTHATHA CASE NO: 2743/11 SAKHELE PRECIOUS NKUME. FIRST NATONAL BANK Respondent JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: MTHATHA CASE NO: 2743/11 Heard on: 06/03/12 Delivered on: 15/03/12 In the matter between: SAKHELE PRECIOUS NKUME Applicant and FIRSTRAND BANK
More information(EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE) 4 t h Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA TRANSKEI In the matters between: CASE NO: 185/05 TENJISWA TOTO 1 s t Respondent ADMINISTRATION 2 n d Respondent THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 3 rd Respondent MEC FOR PROVINCIAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, Case No: In the matter between: EARTHLIFE AFRICA JOHANNESBURG SOUTHERN AFRICAN FAITH COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE First Applicant Second Applicant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE CIRCUIT COURT, EAST LONDON) BLUE NIGHTINGALE TRADING 397 (PTY) LTD t/a SIYENZA GROUP
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE CIRCUIT COURT, EAST LONDON) REPORTABLE CASE NO. EL881/15 ECD 1681/15 In the matter between: BLUE NIGHTINGALE TRADING 397 (PTY) LTD t/a SIYENZA GROUP Applicant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley)
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES/ NO YES/ NO YES/ NO YES/ NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley) CASE
More informationOF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Parliament of the Republic of South Africa/ Parlement van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 78 Draft Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Amendment Bill, 2018: Invitation
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWA-ZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWA-ZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN In the matter between: CASE NO.: 11174/15 NAYESAN REDDY Applicant And LERENDAREN REDDY SHERIFF OF THE COURT, DURBAN COASTAL SHERIFF
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 11/01 IN RE: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MPUMALANGA PETITIONS BILL, 2000 Heard on : 16 August 2001 Decided on : 5 October 2001 JUDGMENT LANGA DP: Introduction
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. 6404/11 In the matter between:
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. 6404/11 In the matter between: SOLOMON MNGOMEZULU 1 ST APPLICANT TINDLA ORELIUS MNGOMEZULU 2 ND APPLICANT JABULANI SEVENDAYS
More information\c...ltl, ~ HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DMSION, PRETORIA) CASE NO: 40010/2017 MULUGATADANIELJAMOLE THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL HOME AFFAIRS
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DMSION, PRETORIA) CASE NO: 40010/2017 \c...ltl, ~ DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: \',J'S I NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: 'PES'I NO. (3) REVISED.v"
More informationIn the matter between: Case No: 398/2016 NELSON MANDELA BAY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY. ERASTYLE (PTY) LTD (Registration Number: 2012/038907/07)
REPORTABLE/NOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No: 398/2016 Date heard: 29 August 2018 Further submissions: 28 September
More informationPROMOTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE ACT 3 OF 2000
Page 1 of 13 PROMOTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE ACT 3 OF 2000 [ASSENTED TO 3 FEBRUARY 2000] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 30 NOVEMBER 2000] (Unless otherwise indicated) (English text signed by the President)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION. PRETORIA) MEGAN B OOSTHUIZEN...APPLICANT RHODERICK CHARLES CHRISTIE...INTERESTED PARTY/ JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION.
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA TSHIVHULANA ROYAL FAMILY NDITSHENI NORMAN NETSHIVHULANA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 48/16 TSHIVHULANA ROYAL FAMILY Applicant and NDITSHENI NORMAN NETSHIVHULANA Respondent Neutral citation: Tshivhulana Royal Family v
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff. ANDRé ALROY FILLIS First Defendant. MARILYN ELSA FILLIS Second Defendant JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NOT REPORTABLE EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH Case No.: 1796/10 Date Heard: 3 August 2010 Date Delivered:17 August 2010 In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: 09/2058 In the matter between: HARE, NEIL CLIVE Applicant and THE PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL NO 140 First Respondent MOTORSPORT SOUTH
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: J 965/18 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION ( SAMWU ) Applicant and MXOLISI QINA MILTON MYOLWA SIVIWE
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Reportable CASE NO: J20/2010 In the matter between: MOHLOPI PHILLEMON MAPULANE Applicant and MADIBENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent ADV VAN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE Case Number: 70853/2011 d) (2) (3) REPORTABLE {/Esh OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES' REVISED. s/ (yes^#. / /
More informationNONTSAPO GETRUDE BANGANI THE LAND REFORM THE REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION FULL BENCH APPEAL JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) APPEAL CASE NO. CA25/2016 Reportable Yes / No In the matter between: NONTSAPO GETRUDE BANGANI Appellant and THE MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) CASE NO: 12520/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) CASE NO: 12520/2015 In the matter between: HEATHCLIFFE ALBYN STEWART LEA SUZANNE STEWART JOSHUA DANIEL STEWART AIDEN JASON STEWART LUKE
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the case between:- Case No. : 5495/2011 KRUGER HERMAN UTOPIA CONSTRUCTION CC Reg no 2002/001529/23 First Applicant Second Applicant en SET-MAK
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Eastern Cape High Court: Mthatha) CASE NO. 615/08. In the matter between: NTOMBOKUQALA MAKHITSHI NOLULAMO ZAZAZA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Eastern Cape High Court: Mthatha) CASE NO. 615/08 In the matter between: NTOMBOKUQALA MAKHITSHI NOLULAMO ZAZAZA AYEZA NONTOBEKO BOYCE NOMTHUNZI OLGA HLAKUVA NOMAKHOSAZANA
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) CASH CRUSADERS FRANCHISING (PTY) LTD
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 1052/2013 2970/2013 CASH CRUSADERS FRANCHISING (PTY) LTD Applicant v LUVHOMBA
More informationof a rule nisi, sought by the Applicants and granted by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION CASE NO. 161/2001 In the matter between: NAUGIS INVESTMENTS CC G N H OFFICE AUTOMATION CC First Applicant Second Applicant and THE KWAZULU- NATAL
More informationNORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG
NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: M370/14 In the matter between: IZANDRA TRADING 9 (PTY) LTD APPLICANT And THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR HEALTH, NORTH WEST PROVINCE THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT:
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DENGETENGE HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 39/13 [2013] ZACC 48 DENGETENGE HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD Applicant and SOUTHERN SPHERE MINING AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD RHODIUM REEFS LTD
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. : 3861/2013 In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI Applicant and MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION,
More information(2 August 2017 to date) PROMOTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE ACT 3 OF 2000
(2 August 2017 to date) [This is the current version and applies as from 2 August 2017, i.e. the date of commencement of the Judicial Matters Amendment Act 8 of 2017 to date] PROMOTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN CORNELIS ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES N.O.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case no: 16920/2016 THE HABITAT COUNCIL Applicant v THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN CORNELIS ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES N.O. MICHAEL ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES
More informationRegistered at the Post Offıce as a Newspaper CONTENTS
PROVINCE OF WESTERN CAPE Provincial Gazette Extraordinary 6941 Wednesday, 21 December 2011 PROVINSIE WES-KAAP Buitengewone Provinsiale Koerant 6941 Woensdag, 21 Desember 2011 Registered at the Post Offıce
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO.: 3022/02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO.: 3022/02 REPORTABLE In the matter ex parte application of : LEON OWEN SANDERS ID NUMBER : 731215 5158 084 First Applicant
More informationSOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE (PE) RUGBY CLUB JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH Case number: 1159/2016 Date heard: 18/8/16 Date delivered: 20/9/16 Not reportable In the matter between: DESPATCH RUGBY CLUB
More informationMEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: CA 337/2013 DATE HEARD: 18/8/14 DATE DELIVERED: 22/8/14 REPORTABLE In the matter between: IKAMVA ARCHITECTS CC APPELLANT and MEC FOR
More informationIN THE ELECTORAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE ELECTORAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: CASE NUMBER: 011/2016 EC NATIONAL FREEDOM PARTY (NFP) Applicant And THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION INKATHA FREEDOM PARTY
More informationLAURITZEN BULKERS A/S PLAINTIFF THE MV CHENEBOURG DEFENDANT
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (Exercising its Admiralty Jurisdiction) Case No: AC210/2009 Name of Ship: MV CHENEBOURG In the matter between: LAURITZEN BULKERS A/S PLAINTIFF
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA /ES (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) D F S FLEMINGO SA (PTY) LTD AIRPORTS COMPANY SOUTH AFRICA LTD JUDGMENT
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA /ES (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO: 70057/2009 Date:17/05/2012 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: D F S FLEMINGO SA (PTY) LTD APPLICANT AND AIRPORTS COMPANY
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MONEY BILLS AMENDMENT PROCEDURE AND RELATED MATTERS AMENDMENT BILL, 2017
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MONEY BILLS AMENDMENT PROCEDURE AND RELATED MATTERS AMENDMENT BILL, 2017 (As initiated by the Standing Committee on Finance, as a Committee Bill, for introduction in the National
More informationTHE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH Case No.: 3414/2010 Date Heard: 9 February 2012 Date Delivered: 16-02-2012 In the matter between: JANNATU ALAM Plaintiff and THE MINISTER
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2494/16 In the matter between: NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS Applicant and GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) Date: 2011-01-07 In the matter between: Case Number: 27974/2010 TELKOM SA LIMITED Applicant and MERID TRADING (PTY) LTD BIZ AFRICA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) JUDGEMENT
Circulate to Magistrates: Yes / No Reportable: Yes / No Circulate to Judges: Yes / No IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) Date heard: 2007/12/13 Date delivered: 2008/02/08 Case no:
More informationMINYUKU TSAKANI YVETTE MINYUKU TINYIKO ROSE MINYUKU MUHLURI MINYUKU HLEKANI ROSE MASTER OF LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU) In the matter between: Case No. 356/2012 MINYUKU TSAKANI YVETTE MINYUKU TINYIKO ROSE MINYUKU MUHLURI 1 st Applicant 2 nd Applicant 3
More informationLIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS ACT 2012 LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS REGULATIONS 2012 ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS PART I PRELIMINARY
LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS ACT 2012 LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS REGULATIONS 2012 ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Regulation 1. Citation and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Forms
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case No.: 3048/2015 STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Plaintiff And JOROY 0004 CC t/a UBUNTU PROCUREM 1 st
More informationCAPE POINT VINEYARDS (PTY) LTD v PINNACLE POINT GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER (ADVANTAGE PROJECTS MANAGERS (PTY) LTD INTERVENING) 2011 (5) SA 600 (WCC) A
CAPE POINT VINEYARDS (PTY) LTD v PINNACLE POINT GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER (ADVANTAGE PROJECTS MANAGERS (PTY) LTD INTERVENING) 2011 (5) SA 600 (WCC) A 2011 (5) SA p600 Citation 2011 (5) SA 600 (WCC) Case No
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MANONG & ASSOCIATES (PTY) LTD. EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE 1 st Respondent NATIONAL TREASURY
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 331/08 MANONG & ASSOCIATES (PTY) LTD Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF ROADS & TRANSPORT, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE 1 st Respondent NATIONAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST, MAFIKENG) THE CROSSING PROPERTY INVESTMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST, MAFIKENG) CASE NO. 2497/07 In the matter between:- THE CROSSING PROPERTY INVESTMENT APPLICANT (PTY) LTD And THE PREMIER OF THE NORTH WEST PROVINCE RESPONDENT
More informationTEFU BEN MATSOSO Applicant THABA NCHU LONG AND SHORT DISTANCE TAXI ASSOCIATION DELIVERED ON: 25 SEPTEMBER 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: Case No.: 2165/2008 TEFU BEN MATSOSO Applicant and THABA NCHU LONG AND SHORT DISTANCE TAXI ASSOCIATION Defendant
More informationNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: AIR QUALITY AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: AIR QUALITY AMENDMENT BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 76); explanatory summary of Bill published in Government
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO: 563/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO: 563/2008 In the matter between: NONTWAZANA MANGQO Plaintiff and MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, EASTERN CAPE Defendant JUDGMENT
More informationRAMPOLA v THE MEC for EDUCATION LIMPOPO & ANOTHER JUDGEMENT
RAMPOLA v THE MEC for EDUCATION LIMPOPO & ANOTHER FORUM : HIGH COURT (TPD) JUDGE : VAN ROOYEN AJ CASE NO : 26675/05 DATE : 24 OCTOBER 2005 Applicant alleged summary dismissal from her post but in effect
More informationCRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL OFFENCES AND RELATED MATTERS) AMENDMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL OFFENCES AND RELATED MATTERS) AMENDMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL (As amended by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services) (The English text is
More informationLAND RESTITUTION AND REFORM LAWS AMENDMENT ACT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LAND RESTITUTION AND REFORM LAWS AMENDMENT ACT REPUBLIEK VAN SUID-AFRIKA WYSIGINGSWET OP GRONDHERSTEL- EN GRONDHERVORMINGSWETTE No, 1997 GENERAL EXPLANATORY NOTE: [ ] Words in
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA) CASE NO: 26438/2010 \ DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLIGA3L
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA US (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA) CASE NO: 26438/2010 \ DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLIGA3L \ (1i REPORTABLE: 6/NO. 1 i ' 1 (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: WEWNO.
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.: 264/13 In the matter between:
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.: 264/13 In the matter between: KGOSI J JEM RAMOKOKA BAPHALANE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL First Applicant Second Applicant and BOSMAN NOAH RAMOKOKA COMMISSION ON
More informationHOUSING CONSUMERS PROTECTION MEASURES AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HOUSING CONSUMERS PROTECTION MEASURES AMENDMENT BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 76); explanatory summary of Bill published in Government Gazette
More informationLIMPOPO TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP AND INSTITUTIONS ACT 6 OF (Signed by the Premier) [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 APRIL 2006]
LIMPOPO TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP AND INSTITUTIONS ACT 6 OF 2005 (Signed by the Premier) [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 APRIL 2006] As amended by Act 4 of 2011 ACT To provide for the recognition of traditional
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held at PORT ELIZABETH CASE NUMBER : LCC35/97 THE FARMERFIELD COMMUNAL PROPERTY TRUST Claimant concerning: THE REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 7 OF THE FARM KLIPHEUVEL
More informationIn the matter between: UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application in terms of which applicant seeks the following declaratory orders:
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION & ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER JANSEN VAN VUUREN N.O JUDITH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISON)
2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISON) UNREPORTABLE In the matter between: Case No: 35420 / 03 Date heard: 17 & 21/02/2006 Date of judgment: 4/8/2006 PAUL JACOBUS SMIT PLAINTIFF
More informationIn the matter between: Case No: 919/2011 THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LONG-TERM INSURANCE
NOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No: 919/2011 MONICA DE LANGE Applicant And THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LONG-TERM INSURANCE First Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT LUZALUZILE FARMERS ASSOCIATION LTD THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAVING BANK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT In the matter between: Civil Case 820/15 LUZALUZILE FARMERS ASSOCIATION LTD Applicant And THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 st Respondent 2 nd Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case No: 20123/2017 20124/2017 In the matter between: SANRIA 21 (PTY) LTD Applicant and NORDALINE (PTY) LTD Respondent (Case no. 20123/2017)
More informationEASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES JUDGMENT. 1] This is an application to have the respondent s name struck off the roll
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No.: 2232/2011 Date heard: 23 March 2012 Date delivered: 20 August 2012 EASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES Applicant
More informationLEGAL STATUS OF DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR. 1 Section 33A of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 provides as follows:
LEGAL STATUS OF DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR Introduction 1 Section 33A of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 provides as follows: 33A Directives (1) The registrar may, in order to ensure compliance
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR2134/15 DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS Applicant and GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL First Respondent BARGAINING
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) WATERKLOOF MARINA ESTATES (PTY) LTD...Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) Case number: 64309/2009 Date: 10 May 2013 In the matter between: WATERKLOOF MARINA ESTATES (PTY) LTD...Plaintiff and CHARTER DEVELOPMENT (PTY)
More informationCGSO Dear Queen 1. INTRODUCTION
ENSafrica 150 West Street Sandton Johannesburg South Africa 2196 P O Box 783347 Sandton South Africa 2146 Docex 152 Randburg tel +2711 269 7600 info@ensafrica.com cgso CGSO queenm@cgso.org.za 14112017
More informationMr V Ramaano Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development CAPE TOWN
4 March 2011 Email: vramaano@parliament.gov.za Mr V Ramaano Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development CAPE TOWN Dear Sir COMMENTS: STATE LIABILITY BILL We attach hereto comments by
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG MARTHINUS JOHANNES LAUFS DATE OF HEARING : 28 OCTOBER 2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01 DECEMBER 2016
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG In the matter between: CASE NO:
More information[1] The above matter came before me on 11 April 2017 by way of urgency.
CASE NO: 20371/2017 (1) (2) (3) REPORT ABLE: YES / NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO REVISED. DATE SIGNATURE In the matter between: THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN PROVINCES Applicant and SIFELANE
More informationRESTITUTION BY EXPROPRIATION OF LAND RIGHTS WHAT ABOUT MARKET VALUE?
RESTITUTION BY EXPROPRIATION OF LAND RIGHTS WHAT ABOUT MARKET VALUE? The Zimbabwe Route? The Issues In very recent Media Release from the Department of Agriculture, the Minister for Agriculture and Land
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT CASE NO: 297/2013 Reportable In the matter between: DEAN OF THE LAW FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH WEST First Appellant VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable CASE NO: P 322/15 In the matter between ANDILE FANI Applicant and First Respondent EXECUTIVE MAYOR,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY Case No: 580/11 Date of Hearing: 27.05.2011 Date Delivered: 17.06.2011 In the matter between: BABEREKI CONSULTING ENGINEERS (PTY) LIMITED
More informationPRO BONO AND HUMAN RIGHTS. A guide to the judicial review of decisions made during the asylum adjudication process
PRO BONO AND HUMAN RIGHTS A guide to the judicial review of decisions made during the asylum adjudication process TABLE OF CONTENTS A guide to the judicial review of decisions made during the asylum adjudication
More informationSOUTH AFRICAN POSTBANK LIMITED AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH AFRICAN POSTBANK LIMITED AMENDMENT BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 75); explanatory summary of Bill published in Government Gazette No. 36651
More informationNATIONAL HOMEBUILDERS REGISTRATION Second Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 12 AUGUST 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case No. 13669/14 In the matter between: FRANCOIS JOHAN RUITERS Applicant And THE MINISTER OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS First Respondent NATIONAL
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) MOGALE, DAISY DIBUSENG PAULINAH...First Applicant
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Reportable: YES / NO Circulate to Judges: YES / NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG In the
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no. JR 2422/08 In the matter between: GEORGE TOBA Applicant and MOLOPO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL
More informationMade available by Sabinet REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA EXPROPRIATION BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA EXPROPRIATION BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 76); explanatory summary of Bill published in Government Gazette No. 38418 of 26 January 1) (The English
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo P W MODITSWE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR 1702/12 In the matter between - PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo P W MODITSWE Applicant
More information