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

City of Cape Town v Commando and Others

Citation(1303/2021) [2023] ZASCA 7 (6 February 2023)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional LawHousing 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
Administrative Law
Eviction Law

Facts of the Case

The first to twenty-sixth respondents (the occupiers) were tenants of property at erf 10626, Bromwell Street, Woodstock, Cape Town, rented from the Syms brothers. Woodstock Hub (Pty) Ltd purchased the property and sought to evict the occupiers. Two eviction orders were granted by consent in 2016 under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE). The occupiers faced homelessness. The City of Cape Town was cited but no relief was sought from it in the eviction proceedings. The occupiers' new attorneys initiated discussions with the City about emergency accommodation. The City offered temporary emergency housing at Wolwerivier (approximately 30 km away) and later at Kampies, Philippi (approximately 15 km away). The occupiers rejected these offers, primarily on the basis of distance from the property. They sought emergency accommodation in Woodstock, Salt River or the Inner-City Precinct. The occupiers launched an application seeking a declaration that the City's emergency housing programme was unconstitutional for failing to provide emergency housing in the inner city, and an order directing the City to provide them with temporary emergency accommodation or transitional housing in Woodstock, Salt River or the Inner-City Precinct. The high court granted the order.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the City of Cape Town's emergency housing programme and its implementation is unconstitutional for failing to provide emergency housing in the inner city and surrounds, specifically Woodstock and Salt River
  • Whether the Constitution and relevant legislation impose a duty on a municipality to provide temporary emergency accommodation at a specific location chosen by evictees
  • Whether the City's emergency housing programme is reasonable within the meaning of section 26(2) of the Constitution
  • Whether the City's differentiation between emergency housing beneficiaries (offering transitional housing in the inner city to some but not the occupiers) was irrational or arbitrary
  • What constitutes a just and equitable order in circumstances where evictees face homelessness

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was upheld with no order as to costs. The high court's order was set aside and replaced with an order that: (1) The City of Cape Town must provide the occupiers and their dependants with temporary emergency accommodation in a location as near as possible to erf 10626, Bromwell Street, Woodstock, on or before 30 May 2023, provided they are still resident and have not voluntarily vacated; (2) The date for vacating the property is extended to 30 June 2023; (3) No order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Section 26 of the Constitution, the Housing Act 107 of 1997, and the National Housing Code do not impose a duty on municipalities to provide temporary emergency accommodation at a specific location or locality chosen by evictees. (2) The Constitution does not guarantee a right to housing at government expense at the locality of one's choice; locality is determined by various factors including availability of land, though municipalities must have regard to the relationship between location and places of employment. (3) In assessing reasonableness under section 26(2), courts must not enquire whether other more desirable measures could have been adopted or whether public money could have been better spent; the enquiry is confined to whether the measures adopted are reasonable. (4) Courts must acknowledge that government must determine and set priorities, and a wide range of possible measures could be adopted to meet constitutional obligations. (5) A housing programme must be assessed holistically, considering all housing delivery programmes, not emergency housing in isolation. (6) Differentiation between categories of emergency housing beneficiaries does not constitute arbitrary conduct where based on legitimate policy objectives (such as reserving transitional housing for specific relocation purposes to enable permanent housing development). (7) Courts must not trespass into the executive domain of deciding how to allocate housing budgets and resources, as this offends the separation of powers doctrine. (8) Even where a specific locality cannot be mandated, courts must make just and equitable orders to prevent homelessness, requiring emergency accommodation "as near as possible" to current residences.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made several non-binding observations: (1) The Court noted that access to adequate housing remains one of the major challenges in South Africa, exacerbated by urbanisation and the persistence of apartheid spatial planning patterns, which are particularly pronounced in Cape Town. (2) The Court observed that even when parties consent to eviction orders, judicial officers have a duty to conduct enquiries under PIE because of the risk of homelessness, though no appeal was brought against the consent orders in this case. (3) The Court noted that temporary emergency accommodation has in many instances become semi-permanent or permanent due to housing shortages. (4) The Court observed that a political speech by a municipal politician does not constitute policy carefully considered and adopted by a policy-maker. (5) The Court commented that housing programmes must be flexible and adaptive. (6) The Court emphasized the distinction between temporary emergency housing (provided to meet emergency needs) and progressive realisation of adequate permanent housing (which may be subsidized to varying degrees depending on beneficiaries' circumstances). (7) The Court noted that once it is recognized that emergency accommodation will inevitably fall short of standards expected of permanent housing, occupants must accept less than what would ordinarily be acceptable, though this must be seen against the realities of vast housing backlogs. (8) The Court emphasized that in choosing appropriate locations for emergency housing, the City should treat occupiers with dignity and care, taking into account places of employment, children's schooling, hospitals, transportation and other amenities, as well as the vulnerabilities of occupiers. (9) The Court applied the Biowatch principle regarding costs in public interest litigation.

Legal Significance

This case clarifies the scope of municipalities' constitutional obligations regarding emergency housing under section 26 of the Constitution. It establishes that while municipalities have a duty to provide temporary emergency accommodation to evictees facing homelessness, this duty does not extend to providing such accommodation at a specific location chosen by the beneficiaries. The judgment reinforces the separation of powers by holding that courts cannot dictate to municipalities where particular housing programmes should be implemented or how public resources should be allocated, provided the municipality's policy choices are rational and reasonable. The case also emphasizes that housing programmes must be assessed holistically, not in isolation, and that differentiation between categories of beneficiaries does not necessarily constitute arbitrary or irrational conduct. It highlights the ongoing challenges of spatial transformation, gentrification, and the legacy of apartheid spatial planning in South African cities, particularly Cape Town. The judgment is significant for housing rights litigation and for understanding the limits of judicial intervention in socio-economic rights cases involving polycentric policy decisions.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 5 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Baron and Others v Claytile (Pty) Limited and Another[2017] ZACC 24
    Cites

    Cited in support of the Wolwerivier structures being suitable within the City's available resources.

  • City of Johannesburg v Dladla(403/2015) [2016] ZASCA 66 (18 May 2016)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that emergency accommodation will fall short of standards expected of permanent housing and occupiers must accept less than what…

  • Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others2001 (1) SA 46 (CC); 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC); Case CCT 11/00
    Follows

    Followed for the principle that the State is constitutionally obliged to provide relief for people in intolerable conditions or crisis situations and for the…

  • National Treasury and Others v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others[2012] ZACC 18
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that it is exclusively the government's executive function to determine how public resources are to be drawn upon and re-ordered.

Cited By 74 Cases

  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    Cites

    Authority for mootness principles and when it is not in the interests of justice to decide moot matters.

  • Abbott v Overstrand Municipality(99/2015) [2016] ZASCA 68
    Applies

    Applied to confirm that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is limited to procedural rights and that the inquiry for determining the existence of a…

  • Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others(CCT 48/13) [2013] ZACC 42
    Cites

    Cited in relation to the importance of compliance with mandatory and material procedural requirements.

  • Azeem Hassan Walele v The City of Cape Town(CCT 64/07) [2008] ZACC 11
    Cites

    Cited on the interpretation of section 4(1) of the Building Standards Act and the requirement that plans comply with the Act and applicable legislation.

Practice This Case

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

  • Occupiers of Erven 87 & 88 Berea v Christiaan Frederick De Wet N.O.[2017] ZACC 18
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that even when parties consent to an eviction order, judicial officers have a duty to conduct an enquiry under PIE because of the…

  • PUTCO (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others(252/2022) [2023] ZASCA 31 (30 March 2023)
    Follows

    Followed for the principle that government has a constitutional duty to provide emergency housing to persons in crisis situations and that emergency…

  • Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes(CCT 22/08) [2011] ZACC 8
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that historical spatial planning policies in Cape Town were based on racial discrimination and preference.

  • Bakgatla-Ba-Kgafela Communal Property Association v Bakgatla-Ba-Kgafela Tribal Authority and Others[2015] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that interpretation of legislation constitutes a constitutional issue.

  • Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and OthersCCT 27/03
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that a litigant need not specify a statutory provision as long as the facts alleged show the section is relevant and operative.

  • Berzack v Huntrex 277 (Pty) Ltd and Others(210/2021) [2022] ZASCA 17 (21 February 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that our law does not as a general entitlement recognise the protection of value in a property by imposing restrictions on lawful use…

  • Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Limited v The South Africa Breweries (Pty) Limited(20156/2014) [2015] ZASCA 93
    Cites

    Cited for the two-stage enquiry when developing the common law under s 39(2) of the Constitution: first, whether existing common law should be developed, and…

  • Camps Bay Ratepayers' and Residents' Association and Another v Gerda Yvonne Ada Harrison and Another(CCT 18/10) [2010] ZACC 19
    Applies

    Court applies the interpretation of section 7(1)(b)(ii)(ccc) of the Building Act and the requirement for an adequate recommendation by the building control…

  • Chairperson, Eastern Cape Gambling and Betting Board and Another v Vukani Gaming Eastern Cape (Pty) Ltd and Others(1338/2019; 1366/2019; 119/2020) [2021] ZASCA 180
    Considers

    The court considers Walele's holding that where a decision-maker must be satisfied, they must show the subjective opinion relied upon was based on reasonable…

  • City of Cape Town v Carelse and Others(296/2019) [2020] ZASCA 117 (1 October 2020)
    Appeal From

    This is the judgment under appeal; the SCA dismissed the City's application for leave to appeal and upheld the high court's finding of liability.

  • City of Cape Town v The South African Human Rights Commission(144/2021) [2021] ZASCA 182
    Cites

    The Court cites this case for a court order contemplating removal of unoccupied structures.

  • City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng Development Tribunal and Others(CCT 89/09) [2010] ZACC 11
    Applies

    Applied for the principle regarding local government autonomy within its constitutional sphere.

  • City of Johannesburg v Dladla(403/2015) [2016] ZASCA 66 (18 May 2016)
    Follows

    Followed for the principle that emergency accommodation will invariably fall short of standards expected of permanent housing, and those occupying emergency…

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Lombardy Development (Pty) Ltd and others(724/2017) [2018] ZASCA 77 (31 May 2018)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the application was aimed at the exercise by the City of its constitutional powers to impose rates on property in terms of…

  • City of Tshwane v Marius Blom & GC Germishuizen Incorporated and Kawari Beleggings CC(433/2012) [2013] ZASCA 88 (31 May 2013)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a municipality's power to impose taxes is an original legislative power stemming from the Constitution and is not administrative…

  • Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers' Union and Others v Oak Valley Estates (Pty) Limited and Another[2022] ZACC 7
    Distinguishes

    Court notes this case concerns improper identification of respondents rather than linkage to unlawful conduct.

  • Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 90/11) [2012] ZACC 15
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that one of conditional applications (for leave to appeal) should be made conditional as is practice.

  • Corpclo 2290 cc t/a U-Care v The Registrar of Banks(755/2011) [2012] ZASCA 156 (2 November 2012)
    Applies

    The court applies principles regarding the definition of administrative action under PAJA.

  • Dr B M Rawlins v Dr D C Kemp t/a Centralmed(483/09) [2010] ZASCA 102 (7 September 2010)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the Labour Appeal Court is a specialised appellate court charged with developing labour jurisprudence, and courts should defer to…

  • Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden(421/2023) [2024] ZASCA 90 (10 June 2024)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the principles on wrongful omissions.

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

    Cited to support the decision to order each party to pay its own costs in this Court where a constitutional issue of considerable import was raised.

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

    Applied for the principles that when approving building plans a local authority exercises administrative action and that objectors to planning permission have…

  • Johanna Malan v City of Cape Town(CCT 143/13) [2014] ZACC 25
    Cites

    The High Court in De Bruin held that a clause identical to clause 28 was contrary to public policy and unconstitutional to the extent it allowed cancellation…

  • John Buti Matladi on behalf of the Matladi Family v Greater Tubatse Local Municipality and Others(CCT 42/13) [2013] ZACC 21
    Related To

    Cited by the applicant in support of the argument that the adverse costs order must be set aside.

  • Johnson Matotoba Nokotyana and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others(CCT 31/09) [2009] ZACC 33
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that it is generally preferable for a litigant to exhaust all appeal remedies and not to by-pass the Supreme Court of Appeal.

  • Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others(CCT 43/09) [2009] ZACC 30
    Cites

    Cited for a purposive approach to section 3 of PAJA, emphasising generous interpretation to give proper effect to section 33(1) of the Constitution.

  • Lilian Dudley v The City of Cape TownCase CCT 5/04
    Related To

    Referenced as a conflicting Labour Court decision that answered in the affirmative whether affirmative action can found a cause of action under the EEA.

  • Louw NO v Swartland Municipality(650/10) [2011] ZASCA 142 (23 September 2011)
    Applies

    This case was argued together with the present appeal and directly determines the outcome of this appeal, providing the reasoning for the court's conclusion…

  • Luxolo Fono and Another v Port St Johns Municipality(1271/2022) [2024] ZASCA 161 (22 November 2024)
    Cites

    The full court cited Walele to emphasize that the Building Standards Act must be interpreted to promote the spirit and purport of the Bill of Rights in order…

  • Maccsand (Pty) Ltd and Minister of Mineral Resources v City of Cape Town and others[2011] ZASCA 141 (23 September 2011)
    Cites

    Cited for general propositions on the purpose of zoning schemes under LUPO.

  • Maccsand (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town(CCT 103/11) [2012] ZACC 7
    Appeal From

    The Constitutional Court granted leave to appeal on the LUPO issue but dismissed the appeal on the merits. The Court confirmed that LUPO applies to land used…

  • Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others (Lindiwe Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg)(CCT 39/09) [2009] ZACC 28
    Cites

    Cited to reinforce the constitutional status of local government councils as deliberative assemblies with legislative and executive powers.

  • Member of the Executive Council for Health, Province of the Eastern Cape v Kirland Investments (Pty) Limited t/a Eye & Laser Institute(473/12) [2013] ZASCA 58 (16 May 2013)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a court may not raise issues that were not raised by the parties in review proceedings.

  • Miga Boerdery (Pty) Limited and Another v Jan Polka and OthersLANC: 25R-2024
    Considers

    The court considers this case which was referred to with approval in City of Johannesburg v Dladla regarding the recognition that emergency accommodation by…

  • Minister for Mineral Resources v Swartland Municipality(CCT 102/11) [2012] ZACC 8
    Related To

    A similar case heard together with the present matter, addressing the same issue of MPRDA and LUPO interaction; the reasons for dismissing the appeal in that…

  • 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 proposition that the Constitution has moved away from a hierarchical division of governmental power and municipalities enjoy original and…

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

    Cited as an example of administrative action comprising two decisions taken sequentially by different functionaries; recommendation is to furnish the…

  • Minnaar v Van Rooyen NO(20407/2014) [2015] ZASCA 114
    Distinguishes

    The court distinguished this case where default judgment was granted in a delictual claim, noting that an affidavit was before the court in that case.

  • MM obo GM v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health, North West Province(782/2022) [2024] ZASCA 52
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the respondent owed a legal duty to care for the appellant and her baby.

  • Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd v Beekmans NO and Others(1139/2015) [2016] ZASCA 188
    Follows

    Court follows the interpretation that a local authority may only approve a building plan if satisfied that the application complies with the Act and any other…

  • Modder East Squatters and Greater Benoni City Council v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd2004 (6) SA 40 (SCA); Case Nos 187/03 and 213/03
    Cites

    Cited at pages 1266-1267 to support the state's duty to protect constitutional rights from interference by private parties.

  • Mpumelelo Obed Mbatha v University of Zululand(CCT 45/13) [2013] ZACC 43
    Cites

    Cited as example of interpretation and application of legislation enacted to give effect to constitutional right raising constitutional issue

  • Muldersdrift Sustainable Development Forum v The Council of Mogale City Local Municipality(20424/14) [2015] ZASCA 118 (11 September 2015)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the appointment of a municipal manager cannot be delegated by a municipal council to the executive mayor.

  • Municipality of the City of Cape Town v Reader(719/07) [2008] ZASCA 130 (14 November 2008)
    Applies

    Applied for the finding that the approval of building plans does not by itself materially and adversely affect objectors' rights for purposes of s 3 of PAJA…

  • Nandipha Magudumana v Director of Public Prosecutions, Free State and Others(1196/2023) [2025] ZASCA 62 (16 May 2025)
    Cites

    Cited to confirm that the approach in Modderfontein has been approved.

  • National Commissioner of Correctional Services and Another v Democratic Alliance and Others (with South African Institute of Race Relations intervening as Amicus Curiae)(33/2022) [2022] ZASCA 159 (21 November 2022)
    Applies

    The court applies the characterisation in Walele of a jurisdictional recommendation by a specialist body to the decision-maker as analogous to the Board's…

  • National Union of Mineworkers v Samancor Limited (Tubatse Ferrochrome)(625/10) [2011] ZASCA 74 (25 May 2011)
    Cites

    The court cites Dudley for the proposition that the Labour Appeal Court is a specialised appellate court charged with overseeing the ongoing interpretation of…

  • Nokeng Tsa Taemane Local Municipality v Dinokeng Property Owners Association(518/09) [2010] ZASCA 128
    Cites

    Cited to support the proposition that if a municipality has delegated its power to impose rates, its conduct might be declared invalid in terms of s 172(1)(a)…

  • Ntombomzi Gqwetha v Transkei Development Corporations LtdCase number: 242/04 (Supreme Court of Appeal) - reported as Reportable
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a decision on whether the other party would suffer prejudice cannot be made only when evidence has been placed before the court.

  • Olga Rademan v Moqhaka Local Municipality and Others(CCT 41/12) [2013] ZACC 11
    Cites

    Cited in support of the principle that the imposition and payment of rates falls within a municipality's competence.

  • Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (No 3)[2016] ZACC 20
    Cites

    Court cites Rudolph for the proposition that a structural interdict is 'something more' than a mere declaratory relief.

  • Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No 2)[2015] ZACC 10
    Cites

    Cited as an example of state parties' non-compliance with court orders.

  • Pieterse N.O. and Another v Lephalale Local Municipality and Others[2016] ZACC 40
    Cites

    Cited at paragraph 60 to establish that municipalities' powers are constitutionally recognised and protected, and at paragraph 46 to note the assignment of the…

  • Pringle v Mailula(773/2023) [2024] ZASCA 146 (25 October 2024)
    Cites

    The Court applies the principle that referring to someone as associated with Verwoerd constitutes a racial slur, citing the LAC's holding that right-minded…

  • Rates Action Group v The City of Cape TownCase No: 16/05 (Reportable)
    Related To

    Cited in relation to the significant effect of the revaluation of properties on rates.

  • Shirley Simmadari v Absa Bank LimitedCase No: C124/17 and C728/16
    Applies

    Applied for the approach to unfair discrimination following Harksen and the methodology for determining discrimination cases under the EEA.

  • 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 this case for the proposition that it can consider issues arising from orders other than those dealing with the declaration of constitutional…

  • South African Municipal Workers Union obo Damons v City of Cape TownC306/2015 (Labour Court, Cape Town)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the question was whether the City's blanket ban on employment of diabetics as fire-fighters amounts to unfair discrimination,…

  • Stalwo (Pty) Ltd v Wary Holdings (Pty) Ltd(377/2006) [2007] ZASCA 133
    Cites

    Cited at paragraph 60 regarding the enhanced constitutional status and competence of municipalities to derive power directly from the Constitution.

  • 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