Explore 47 related cases • Click to navigate
Cited for the proposition that prospects of success are not determinative but important when considering the interests of justice.
This is the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment from which leave to appeal is sought; the appeal is upheld and the Supreme Court of Appeal's order is set aside.
Bengwenyama is applied for the principle that the consequences of invalidity must be corrected where they can no longer be prevented.
Cited by the Supreme Court of Appeal in its judgment for the proposition that a court is not required to consider the merits before deciding condonation, a…
ACSA is cited to confirm the principles from Eke that a settlement agreement can only be made an order of court if it conforms to the Constitution and the law.
Cited for the principle that a party applying for condonation must give a full and honest explanation for the whole period of delay.
Cited for the requirement that procurement processes be transparent and competitive under section 217 of the Constitution.
Aurecon is applied for the proposition that due regard must be given to the importance of the issue raised and the prospects of success when considering delay.
SANRAL is cited for the proposition that the merits of the impugned decision must be a critical factor when considering delay.
Cited for the purpose of the doctrine of precedent to ensure certainty, equality and fairness before the law.
Eke is applied for the principle that a settlement agreement can only be made an order of court if it conforms to the Constitution and the law.
Cited for the principle that public functionaries must seek to redress irregularities in public administration.
Merafong is applied for the principle that it is the duty of a state functionary to rectify unlawful decisions and that good faith is relevant to overlooking…
Kirland is applied for the principle that there is a higher duty on the state to respect the law and fulfil procedural requirements.
Cited for the requirement of transparency and fairness in public procurement processes under section 217 of the Constitution.
The Court applies Qaukeni for the requirement that contracts for municipal services follow prescribed procurement processes.
Cited as the seminal judgment from which the line of cases on adhering to procedural requirements in review stems.
The Court follows the Gqwetha test for assessing undue delay in bringing a legality review application, as endorsed in Khumalo.
Cited for the principle that legality review is grounded in sections 1(c), 41(1)(b), 195 and 217 of the Constitution.
Cited for the principle that corruption and maladministration are inconsistent with the rule of law and contrary to the Constitution's requirements for open…
This Court's decision in Gijima is applied to determine that a review must be brought under the principle of legality rather than PAJA.
Cited for the proposition that lawful procurement is a constitutional issue and for the purpose of section 217(1) to eliminate fraud and corruption in public…
The Court applies principles from Tasima I regarding the obligation to have regard to merits when deciding whether to condone delay and the need for a…
This Court applies the Khumalo test for assessing undue delay in legality review applications and the duty of state functionaries to uphold the rule of law.
The Court applies Firechem for the constitutional requirements of a valid procurement process under section 217 and the need for competitive and transparent…
Cited for the proposition that departure from precedent would invite legal chaos, as affirmed in Turnbull-Jackson.
Cited for the principle that this Court is bound by its own decisions under the doctrine of precedent.
This is the High Court judgment at first instance; it declared the Reeston contract unlawful and this Court upholds its overall conclusion on legality.
Cited as additional authority on the principles of statutory interpretation.
This is the High Court judgment from which the current appeal is brought; the appeal is dismissed.
Cited for the governing principle that no party should profit from unlawful conduct under an invalid tender.
Applied extensively to establish the two-stage test for assessing unreasonable delay in legality reviews, and the imperative that consequences of invalidity…
Cited as one of a plethora of judgments advocating a unitary approach to interpretation.
Leading authority applied to determine whether delay was unreasonable and whether it should be overlooked in a legality review; held that even where…
Cited for endorsing the Khumalo test for assessing undue delay in bringing a legality review application, requiring determination of whether delay is…
Court applies principle that settlement agreements must be carefully scrutinised before being made orders of court as they affect parties' rights in the same…
Cited for the three factors to be met for new evidence to be adduced on appeal under section 19(b) of the Superior Courts Act.
Court applies the principle that state or organ of state is subject to a higher duty to respect the law and must be exemplary in compliance with the…
Cited for the principle that in considering applications for condonation, the court has a discretion to be exercised judicially upon a consideration of all…
The Constitutional Court referred to Waymark paras 30–32 regarding the principle that statutory words bear their ordinary grammatical meaning unless an…
Court considers the case in relation to the delay special plea regarding the reasonable time for bringing a review.
Court applies Asla Construction holding that in legality self-review the 180-day period does not apply and no formal application for condonation is required.
This case is cited for the threshold constitutional requirements for a valid procurement process under section 217 of the Constitution.
Respondents drew this Court's attention to the requirements for review applications to be brought within a reasonable time.
Applied for the same principle as Gijima, that a contract may be declared invalid without setting it aside to preserve rights already accrued to the respondent.
Cited for the principle that courts must interpret legislation to promote the spirit, purport and object of the Bill of Rights under section 39(2) of the…
The court follows this decision as authority for the interpretation of statutes and the natural and ordinary meaning of the word 'any'.
The court cites this case to support the interpretative approach requiring regard to text, purpose and context of a provision and applicable constitutional…
Cited for the principle that even if delay is unreasonable, it must be evaluated flexibly and whether the delay can be explained and justified.