CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others

Citation(CCT 54/09) [2010] ZACC 4
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional LawAdministrative Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Transitional Justice
Human Rights

Facts of the Case

Former President Mbeki announced in November 2007 a special dispensation for presidential pardons for persons convicted of politically motivated offences committed before 16 June 1999 who had not applied for amnesty to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The dispensation aimed to address the "unfinished business" of the TRC and promote nation-building and reconciliation. A Pardons Reference Group (PRG) was established to consider applications and make recommendations to the President. The dispensation did not provide for victim participation. NGOs representing victims challenged the exclusion of victims from the pardon process. Mr Albutt and other convicted prisoners who had applied for pardon intervened. The High Court granted an interim interdict preventing the President from granting pardons pending finalization of the main application, finding that victims had a right to be heard. Albutt sought leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the victims of offences for which pardon is sought under the special dispensation process are entitled to be heard prior to the exercise of the presidential power to grant pardon under section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution
  • Whether the decision to exclude victims from the special dispensation process was irrational and violated the rule of law
  • Whether the exercise of the power to grant pardon under section 84(2)(j) constitutes administrative action within the meaning of PAJA
  • Whether the NGOs had standing to bring the application
  • Whether non-joinder of other pardon applicants was fatal to the application

Judicial Outcome

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. The decision to exclude victims from the special dispensation pardon process was declared irrational. Victims are entitled to be heard before the President grants pardon under the special dispensation process. The President and the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development were ordered to pay the costs of the NGOs, including costs for two counsel. No order was made on the application for direct access. Each party to bear its own costs on that application.

Ratio Decidendi

The exercise of all public power, including the presidential power to grant pardon under section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution, must comply with the Constitution and the doctrine of legality, which requires that decisions be rational, made in good faith, and in accordance with the principle of legality. A decision is rational only if the means selected to achieve an objective are rationally related to that objective. Where the President commits to applying specific principles and values in exercising the pardon power—particularly the principles of victim participation that underpinned the TRC amnesty process—and the stated objectives are nation-building and national reconciliation, excluding victims from the process is irrational because victim participation is fundamental to achieving those objectives. In the context of the special dispensation for pardons for political offences, victims are entitled to an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made to grant pardon. This requirement flows from the context-specific features of the special dispensation process and the principle of rationality. The participation of victims is crucial to establishing the truth about whether offences were politically motivated and to achieving reconciliation.

Obiter Dicta

The Court expressly declined to decide whether the exercise of the power to grant pardon under section 84(2)(j) constitutes administrative action under PAJA, stating this question should be left open for another day when a proper occasion is presented. The Court emphasized that its ruling applied only to the special dispensation for political pardons and not to pardons in general, leaving open whether victims of other categories of pardons are entitled to be heard. The Court noted that sound judicial policy requires deciding only what is necessary for proper disposal of a case, particularly in constitutional matters where jurisprudence should develop incrementally. Froneman J, in a concurring judgment, observed that the requirement of participatory democracy finds support in pre-colonial African traditions of victim participation in dealing with offenders, providing additional cultural and historical legitimacy to the conclusion that victims should participate in processes affecting national unity and reconciliation. However, Froneman J emphasized that past applications should not bind the present; rather, they demonstrate the deep roots of participatory principles in South African society.

Legal Significance

This case is significant for establishing that the exercise of executive powers, including the presidential pardon power, must comply with the Constitution and the rule of law, including the requirement of rationality. It confirms that decisions must be rationally connected to their stated objectives. The judgment emphasizes the importance of victim participation in transitional justice processes aimed at reconciliation and nation-building, building on the principles of the TRC. It recognizes the principle of participatory democracy as a constitutional value. The case demonstrates the Court's incremental approach to constitutional adjudication by declining to decide broader questions about whether the pardon power constitutes administrative action under PAJA when those questions were not necessary for the case's resolution. The judgment is also notable for Froneman J's concurrence linking the requirement of participation to both the TRC process and pre-colonial African traditions of participatory decision-making and restorative justice, providing deeper historical and cultural grounding for the Court's conclusion.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 49 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Allan Aubrey Boesak v The StateCCT 25/00, [2000] ZACC 25, 1 December 2000
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that prospects of success are not necessarily determinative of the interests of justice in applications for leave to appeal.

  • Ashok Rama Mistry v The Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa and OthersCCT 13/97; 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (CC); 1998 (4) SA 1127 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited to support the principle that the exercise of all public power must comply with the Constitution and the doctrine of legality.

  • Camilla Jane McDowell v The Minister of Justice and Constitutional DevelopmentCase no. A 104/2007 (unreported, Cape High Court, 21 May 2007)
    Cites

    Cited to support the principle applied to costs regarding what is just and equitable.

  • Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others2006 (6) SA 416 (CC); 2006 (12) BCLR 1399 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the proposition that the democracy our Constitution demands is not merely a representative one but is also a participatory democracy.

Cited By 55 Cases

  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    Cites

    Cited for the Constitutional Court's statement that sound judicial policy requires courts to decide only that which is demanded by the facts of the case and is…

  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    Cites

    Cited for the caution that sound judicial policy requires courts to decide only that which is demanded by the facts of the case and necessary for its proper…

  • African Transformation Movement v The Speaker of the National Assembly and Others(Case no 643/2021) [2021] ZASCA 164 (2 December 2021)
    Applies

    Applied to explain the rationality test, procedural fairness as a requirement for rationality, and that both the process and the decision must be rational.

  • Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Chamber of Mines of South Africa and Others[2017] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that it is axiomatic that the exercise of public power must comply with the doctrine of legality stemming from the rule of law.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

  • Du Toit v The Minister of Safety and Security(467/07) [2008] ZASCA 125 (30 September 2008)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that it is not conventionally associated with the rule of law not to punish those who have flagrantly violated the law and promoting…

  • Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (1) BCLR 1 (CC); CCT 5/95
    Cites

    Cited to support the proposition that the Constitution adopts a broad approach to standing.

  • In re: Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 19961996 (4) SA 744 (CC); 1996 (10) BCLR 1253 (CC); Case CCT 23/96
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the President derives power from the Constitution, which proclaims its own supremacy and defines the limits of the powers it…

  • Joaquim Augusto de Freitas and Independent Association of Advocates of South Africa v The Society of Advocates of Natal(CCT 2/98) [1998] ZACC 13
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that prospects of success are not necessarily determinative of the interests of justice in applications for leave to appeal.

  • Khumalo and Others v Holomisa2002 (5) SA 401 (CC); Case CCT 53/01
    Cites

    Cited in relation to the test for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court and the criteria for determining whether an order is appealable (final in effect,…

  • Lawyers for Human Rights and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another(CCT 18/03) [2004] ZACC 12
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that public interest standing under section 38(d) is much broader than other grounds of standing, and that similar organisations have…

  • Luke M Tembani and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another(167/2021) [2022] ZASCA 70 (20 May 2022)
    Cites

    Cited to support the proposition that the common law duty to act fairly may require a hearing, and that the President must always act in accordance with the…

  • Member of the Executive Council for Development Planning and Local Government in the Provincial Government of Gauteng v The Democratic Party and Others1998 (4) SA 1157 (CC); 1998 (7) BCLR 855 (CC); Case CCT 33/97
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that what is in the interests of justice must be determined in light of the facts of each case.

  • Metcash Trading Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue ServiceCCT 3/2000; 2001 (1) SA 1109 (CC); 2000 (12) BCLR 1357 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that in determining whether an order is final in effect, what matters is not only the form of the order but also, and predominantly,…

  • Millennium Waste Management (Pty) Limited v The Chairperson of the Tender Board: Limpopo Province[2007] SCA 165 (RSA); Case No 31/2007
    Appeal From

    The Constitutional Court granted leave to appeal and upheld the appeal, dismissing the High Court's order. However, the Court found on different grounds that…

  • Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Mqabukeni Chonco and 383 Others(CCT 42/09) [2010] ZACC 9
    Cites

    Cited to support the proposition that while there is no right to pardon, an applicant seeking pardon has a right to have his application considered and decided…

  • Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and OthersCCT 8/02 (also reported as 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC); 2002 (10) BCLR 1033 (CC))
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that what is in the interests of justice must be determined in light of the facts of each case, and to discuss relevant…

  • Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA: In re Ex parte President of RSA2000 (2) SA 674 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the exercise of all public power must comply with the Constitution and the doctrine of legality.

  • SA Bank of Athens Limited v May van ZylCase No 431/03 (SCA, unreported judgment delivered 21 February 2005)
    Cites

    Cited to support the proposition that the exercise of all public power must comply with the Constitution and the doctrine of legality.

  • The Azanian Peoples Organization (AZAPO) and Others v The President of the Republic of South Africa and OthersCCT 17/96; 1996 (4) SA 671 (CC); 1996 (8) BCLR 1015 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited extensively for the role of the amnesty process in uncovering truth, achieving national unity and reconciliation, and the importance of victim…

  • The Campus Law Clinic (University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban) v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development(CCT 01/06) [2006] ZACC 5 (31 March 2006)
    Cites

    Cited as an example of a case where organisations similar to the NGOs have been found to have standing before the Constitutional Court.

  • The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others (Recusal Application)CCT 16/98 (Judgment delivered 4 June 1999)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the exercise of all public power must comply with the Constitution, supremacy of the Constitution and the doctrine of legality,…

  • Women's Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 13/09) [2009] ZACC 20
    Appeal From

    This judgment is deciding an appeal against the High Court's order granting an interim interdict; appeal upheld in part, the interim interdict order is set…

  • Xolisile Zondi v Member of the Executive Council for Traditional and Local Government Affairs and Others(CCT 73/03) [2004] ZACC 19
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that what the opportunity to make representations requires depends on the context.

  • Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 91/12) [2013] ZACC 13
    Applies

    Applied to support the proposition that the exercise of public power is constrained by the principle of legality and that both the process and the decision…

  • Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Puling Puling and Tapiwanashe Puling; Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Petrus Kgosi Ramokgopa(802/2016) [2017] ZASCA 141
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that sound judicial policy requires courts to decide only that which is demanded by the facts and necessary for proper disposal,…

  • Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v Asla Construction (Pty) Limited[2019] ZACC 15
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that prospects of success are not determinative but important when considering the interests of justice.

  • Capital Newspapers Proprietary Limited and Another v Media24 Holdings Limited and OthersCase No: 259/CAC/Oct24
    Applies

    Court applies Albutt to determine whether the court's findings in Part A were interlocutory or final in effect on the dispute.

  • Children's Institute v Presiding Officer of the Children's Court, District of Krugersdorp and Others(CCT 69/12) [2012] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited on the appealability of interlocutory orders and factors to consider in deciding whether it is in the interests of justice to hear such appeals.

  • City of Cape Town v Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd[2017] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that sound judicial policy requires courts to decide only that which is demanded by the facts and necessary for proper disposal of the…

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others v Dragon Freight (Pty) Ltd and Others(751/21) [2022] ZASCA 84
    Cites

    Court cites for the principle that a decision must be rationally related to its purpose.

  • Compcare Wellness Medical Scheme v Registrar of Medical Schemes and Others(267/2020) [2020] ZASCA 91 (17 August 2020)
    Cites

    Cited for the Constitutional Court's mandate of a generous approach to representative standing.

  • Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 122/11) [2012] ZACC 24
    Applies

    Applied for the proposition that rationality review applies to both the process and the ultimate decision, and that the means employed must be rationally…

  • Democratic Alliance v The Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions(288/11) [2012] ZASCA 15 (20 March 2012)
    Follows

    Applied for the broad approach to standing, particularly where NGOs act in the public interest and in the interest of victims.

  • Duwayne Esau and Others v Minister of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others(611/2020) [2021] ZASCA 9 (28 January 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for articulating the requirement of procedural rationality that the means chosen to take a decision must be rationally related to the objective sought to…

  • Electronic Media Network Limited and Others v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others[2017] ZACC 17
    Applies

    The Court applies the rationality test from Albutt requiring a rational connection between means selected and the objective sought to be achieved, and that…

  • Eskom Holdings SOC Limited v Vaal River Development Association (Pty) Limited and Others[2022] ZACC 44; 2023 (1) BCLR 1 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for caution against making definitive holdings on complex legal questions at interim stage.

  • e.tv (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Communications(1039/2015) [2016] ZASCA 85
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that both the process by which a decision is made and the decision itself must be rational and rationally related to achieving the…

  • Falk and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions(CCT 95/10) [2011] ZACC 26
    Cites

    Cited for the factors considered in determining whether it is in the interests of justice for this Court to grant leave to appeal.

  • Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School and Others v Ahmed Asruff Essay N.O. and Others(CCT 29/10) [2011] ZACC 13
    Cites

    Cited for the test concerning when the interests of justice warrant granting leave to appeal, including consideration of prospects of success which is not…

  • Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Others[2013] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the state's obligations in relation to political decision-making under section 7(2).

  • International Trade Administration Commission v SCAW South Africa (Pty) Ltd (with Bridon International Limited intervening)(CCT 59/09) [2010] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that what is in the interests of justice will depend on a careful evaluation of all the relevant considerations in a particular case.

  • JDJ Properties CC and Another v Umngeni Local Municipality and Another(873/11) [2012] ZASCA 186 (29 November 2012)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of review on grounds of legality and rationality.

  • Judicial Service Commission v Cape Bar Council (Centre for Constitutional Rights as amicus curiae)(818/2011) [2012] ZASCA 115 (14 September 2012)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the doctrine of legality is an aspect of the rule of law requiring lawful exercise of public power.

  • Law Society of South Africa and Others v Minister for Transport and Another(CCT 38/10) [2010] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that when testing rationality courts must examine whether the means chosen are rationally related to the public good sought to be…

  • Law Society of South Africa and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others[2018] ZACC 51
    Applies

    Applied to establish the principle that the exercise of presidential power must be rationally related to the purpose sought to be achieved, both in relation to…

  • Masemola v Special Pensions Appeal Board and Another[2019] ZACC 39
    Considers

    Court considers Albutt which determined the scope of the President's power to grant pardons to people convicted of offences committed with a political motive…

  • MEC: Department of Education North West Province and Another v FEDSAS(021/2016) [2016] ZASCA 192 (01 December 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of rationality review: that the executive has a wide discretion in selecting means to achieve objectives and courts may not interfere…

  • Merifon (Pty) Ltd v Greater Letaba Municipality and Another(1112/2019) [2021] ZASCA 50 (22 April 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the exercise of public power must derive from the law.

  • Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Another v British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others(309/21) [2022] ZASCA 89
    Applies

    Applied at para 108 for the concept of procedural irrationality, which involves determining whether the steps in the administrative process are rationally…

  • Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Motau and Others[2014] ZACC 18
    Applies

    Applied to show that procedural fairness obligations may attach independently of statutory obligation in virtue of the principle of legality

  • Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape v Habitat Council and others
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of judicial economy that the Court should do no more than necessary to decide the question before it.

  • Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape v The Habitat Council and Others; Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape v City of Cape Town and Others[2014] ZACC 9
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of judicial economy, that the Court should do no more than is necessary to decide the sole question before it.

  • Minister of Water and Sanitation v Sembcorp Siza Water (Pty) Ltd and Another[2021] ZACC [20]
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the procedure followed in reaching a decision must be rationally connected to the purpose for which the power was exercised.

  • Moipone Moroka v Premier of the Free State Province and Others(295/2020) [2022] ZASCA 34 (31 March 2022)
    Cites

    Court cites this case for the principle that no organ of state or public official may act contrary to or beyond the scope of their powers as laid down in law.

  • Mqabukeni Chonco and 383 Others v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 94/09) [2010] ZACC 7
    Appeal From

    This was an application for leave to appeal against the High Court interdict granted on 29 April 2009. The matter was filed on 2 June 2009 and heard on 10…

  • National Commissioner of Police Service and Another v Colonel MD Bobie N.O. and AnotherCase no: C585/16 (Labour Court, Cape Town)
    Considers

    The court considers this case as part of the jurisprudence discussing the interplay between review under PAJA and legality review.

  • New Foodcorp Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Foodcorp (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others(82/11) [2012] ZASCA 30 (28 March 2012)
    Applies

    The Constitutional Court decision was applied to set out the test for rationality, namely whether the means selected are rationally related to the objective…

  • Paul Anthony Kalil NO and Others v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others(210/2014) [2014] ZASCA 90 (4 June 2014)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the exercise of all public power must comply with the Constitution and the doctrine of legality.

  • Premier, Gauteng and Others v Democratic Alliance and Others; All Tshwane Councillors who are Members of the Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Democratic Alliance and Others; African National Congress v Democratic Alliance and Others[2021] ZACC 34
    Cites

    Cited on rationality as a ground of legality review and the Executive's wide discretion in selecting means to achieve constitutionally permissible objectives.

  • Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another(CCT 113/11) [2012] ZACC 22
    Cites

    Cited for the principles applicable in condonation applications.

  • Psychological Society of South Africa v Qwelane and Others[2016] ZACC 48
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the fact that an order is temporary does not in itself determine whether the interests of justice require leave to appeal and…

  • Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc v De La Guerre; South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development[2014] ZACC 2
    Cites

    Cited for the rationality test and the courts' obligation to examine whether means selected are rationally related to the objective sought to be achieved.

  • SAAB Grintek Defence (Pty) Ltd v South African Police Service(316/2015) [2016] ZASCA 104 (5 July 2016)
    Cites

    The court cites this case for the principle that circumstances requiring procedural fairness under the principle of legality differ from those under PAJA.

  • Savoi and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another[2014] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited on the test for granting leave to appeal in the interests of justice.

  • Schubart Park Residents' Association and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another(CCT 23/12) [2012] ZACC 26
    Cites

    Court cites Albutt regarding constitutional requirement for substantive involvement and engagement in political decision-making.

  • Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited v Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Eastern Cape and Others[2015] ZACC 23
    Cites

    The Court cites Albutt for the principle that courts may not interfere with legislative or executive means simply because they do not like them, but must…

  • South African Human Rights Commission on behalf of South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Masuku and Another[2022] ZACC 5
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished as not supporting the proposition that subsidiarity may be relaxed; the Court chose to dispose of the matter on legality grounds without deciding…

  • South African Informal Traders Forum and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others; South African National Traders Retail Association v City of Johannesburg and Others[2014] ZACC 8
    Cites

    Cited as one of the cases where this Court has considered the appealability of interim orders.

  • South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Another v Garvas and Others; Congress of South African Trade Unions intervening; Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae(CCT 112/11) [2012] ZACC 13
    Cites

    Cited to reinforce the importance of participation and inclusion in processes necessary to achieve nation-building and national reconciliation.

  • S v S and Another[2019] ZACC 22
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the interim nature of an order is not determinative but whether it is in the interests of justice is the crucial issue in granting…

  • The Citizen 1978 (Pty) Ltd and Others v McBride(CCT 23/10) [2011] ZACC 11
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the reconciliation process could not rationally be extended by granting pardons without hearing the victims, emphasising the…

  • The IPA Foundation (NPC) v South African Pharmacy Council(1024/2023) [2025] ZASCA 148
    Applies

    Applied to explain the rationality standard of review: whether the means selected are rationally related to the objective sought to be achieved, rather than…

  • The National Treasury v Kubukeli(20567/2014) [2015] ZASCA 141 (30 September 2015)
    Applies

    Court applies the principles from Albutt regarding when rationality requires consultation with interested parties, namely where participation is crucial to…

  • Trustees of the Simcha Trust v Da Cruz and Others; City of Cape Town v Da Cruz and Others
    Applies

    Applied to confirm that while prospects of success are important in determining whether leave to appeal should be granted, they are not determinative.

  • Explore More Cases

    More Constitutional Law cases

    • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
    • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The StateSC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • Aaron Musiteyi v The StateHMT 2-21, B 09/21
    • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    • AB and Another v Minister of Social Development[2016] ZACC 43
    • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97