Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v The Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others

Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date Judgment Date Majority Author  Vote
CCT 48/13 North Gauteng High Court, 28 Aug. 2012
SCA, 27 Mar. 2013
10 Sep. 2013


11 Feb. 2014

29 Nov. 2013


17 Apr. 2014

 Froneman J.  Unanimous

By Duncan Wild and Mzukisi Kota

AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“Allpay“) bid for a tender from the South African Social Security Agency (“SASSA“) to administer the national social grant system worth R10 billion, but the tender was awarded to Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd (“CPS“).  Allpay then challenged the decision in the North Gauteng High Court (“NGHC“) on the basis of alleged flaws in the tender process, including the composition of the Bid Evaluation Committee, the failure of CPS to submit separate provincial bids, and the failure to assess CPS’s BEE partners capacity to perform their obligations.  The NGHC accepted Allpay’s challenge, but the SASSA appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA“).

The Constitutional Court unanimously found the tender unlawful, but in view of the potential ramifications requested further submissions on an appropriate remedy.

In a second judgment on remedy the Court, an another unanimous decision authored by Justice Froneman, found that a new tender process should be carried out, but that in the mean itme Cash Paymaster was to continue providing the services in view of the constitutional and contractual obligations to maintain a workable payment system.

Continue reading

Johanna Malan v City of Cape Town

Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date
CCT 143/13 Western Cape High Court, 22 April 2013 20 Feb. 2014

By Avani Singh on 19 February 2014

This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Western Cape High Court (per Dolama J) (“the High Court“) that ordered the eviction of Johanna Malan (“Malan“).  The main issue for determination is whether the City of Cape Town (“the City“) was entitled to cancel Malan’s lease and seek her eviction, along with that of her children, from property owned by it and forming part of its sub-economic housing scheme. Continue reading

Isabel Joyce Florence v The Government of the Republic of South Africa

Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date
CCT 127/13 Land Claims Court, 4 Jun. 2013
SCA, 13 Sep. 2013
18 Feb. 2014

By Duncan Wild on 23 March 2014

The primary question in this case is whether it is appropriate to use the consumer price index (“CPI“) to adjust past loss into present day monetary value for the purposes of financial restitution under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 (“the Restitution Act“). A secondary question relates to whether a court can order the State to pay for construction of a memorial plaque as a form of symbolic relief. Continue reading

Jabulani Zulu and 389 Others v Ethekwini Municipality and Others

Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date
CCT 108/13 KwaZulu Natal High Court, 28 Mar. 2013 12 Feb. 2014

By Stuart Scott on 11 February 2014

The principal issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of a court order granted by Koen J in the High Court on 28 March 2013 (“the March 2013 order”).  The March 2013 order was obtained by the first respondent (“the MEC”) in relation to the second respondent (“the Municipality”) and the third respondent (“the Minister of Police”). Continue reading

Mhlanganisweni Community v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others

Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date
CCT 111/12 Land Claims Court, 19 Apr. 2012 11 Feb. 2014

By Michael Mbikiwa on 10 February 2014

This case concerns the meaning of “feasibility” in section 33(cA) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 (the “RLRA”) and, in particular, the circumstances in which restoration is a feasible method of restitution. Restitution of land rights under the RLRA can occur either by actual restoration of land, or by equitable redress. Equitable redress comprises the granting of a right in alternative state-owned land, the payment of compensation, or a combination of both. Continue reading

Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Christine Hubbard and Another

Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date
CCT 99/13 Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
SCA, 28 May 2013
5 Feb. 2014

By Duncan Wild February 2014

The issue in this case involves the correct interpretation of section 10 of the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act 95 of 1998 (“Housing Consumers Act“), and, second, whether a contravention of its provisions of the may be used to resist enforcing an arbitral award.  Continue reading

Turnbull-Jackson v Hibiscus Coast Municipality and Others

 Case No.  Lower Court Judgments  Hearing Date
 CCT 104/13 KwaZulu-Natal High Court, 26 Sep. 2012 
4 Feb. 2014

By Michael Dafel on 27 January 2014

This matter arises out of a decision of the Hibiscus Coast Municipality to approve building plans submitted by Pearl Star Investments who seeks to develop their property for commercial gain.  Adjacent to the developer’s property is Mr Turnbull-Jackson’s property.  Mr Turnbull-Jackson is aggrieved by the approval of the building plans as he alleges that the building will cut off his ocean view causing his property value to decrease.

Mr Turnbull-Jackson sought to have the approved building plans set aside in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on various grounds.  The application was unsuccessful, and the Supreme Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. Continue reading

J v The State

 Case No.  Lower Court Judgments  Hearing Date
 CCT 114/13  Western Cape High Court, 21 Aug. 2013 6 Feb. 2014

By Duncan Wild on 3 January 2013 The case involves a confirmation of a finding by the Western Cape Division of the High Court of South Africa, Cape Town (“Cape Town High Court“) that section 50(2) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 (“Sexual Offences Act“) was unconstitutional.  The section provides that the details of a person convicted of a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Act must be entered into the National Register of Sexual Offenders (“Register“). Continue reading

Competition Commission v Pioneer Hi-bred International Inc and Others

Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date Judgment Date Majority Author  Vote
CCT 58/13 Competition Tribunal, 14 Oct. 2011
Competition Appeal Court, 28 May 2012
4 Nov. 2013 18 Dec. 2013  Skwyeyia ADCJ  Unanimous

By Sarah McGibbon and Duncan Wild on 21 December 2013

In November the Constitutional Court will hear an application for leave to appeal against a costs order of the Competition Appeal Court (“CAC“) brought by the Competition Commission (“Commission“).

The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous decision written by Acting Deputy Chief Justice, Skweyiya, found that it was generally undesirable to hinder the good faith performance by the Commission of its functions with the threat of a costs order, and in the absence of reasons for the costs order imposed in this case, the costs order should be set aside. Continue reading

Minister of Mineral Resources of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Sishen Iron Ore Company (Pty) Limited and Another

Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date Judgment Date Majority Author  Vote
CCT 58/13 North Gauteng High Court, 20 Dec. 2011 SCA, 28 Mar. 2013 5 Sep. 2013 12 Dec. 2013  Jafta J., and Moseneke DCJ  Unanimous

By Duncan Wild on 12 December 2013

Prior the coming into effect of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (“the MPRDA“), the Sishen Iron Ore Company (Pty) Ltd (“SIOC“) and ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited (“ArcelorMittal“) were co-holders of a mining right in respect of iron and quartzite on eight properties of twenty-one properties making up the Sishen mine.  SIOC held 78.6% and ArcelorMittal 21.4% of the right.  This right is referred to an an “old order” mining right, as it was granted under the pre-MPRDA regime. When the MPRDA came into force, ArcelorMittal and SIOC were entitled to convert their old order rights into new order mining rights under the MPRDA, as provided for in the MPRDA’s Transitional Arrangements. There was a five year period in which application needed to be made for the conversion, SIOC converted its right prior to the expiration of this period, but ArcelorMittal did not. After the expiration of the five year period, the Deputy-Director General: Mineral Regulation: Department of Mineral Resources (“Deputy D-G“) purported to grant a prospecting right in respect of iron ore in respect of seven of the eight Sishen properties to Imperial Crown Trading 289 (Pty) Ltd (“ICT“).  The basis this prospecting right was granted was the assumption by the Deputy D-G that as ArcelorMittal had not converted its portion of the mining right. The grant of this right to ICT is the subject of this case. The Constitutional Court found that SIOC could only apply for and be granted the share of the right it had previously held (78.6%), but that only SIOC could apply for the remaining shares, and therefore it was not open to the D-G to any other party. Continue reading