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

Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others

Citation2006 (6) SA 416 (CC); 2006 (12) BCLR 1399 (CC)
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
Parliamentary Procedure

Facts of the Case

Doctors for Life International (DFL) challenged the constitutional validity of four health Bills (Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act, Traditional Health Practitioners Act, Sterilisation Amendment Act, and Dental Technicians Amendment Act) on the basis that the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and provincial legislatures failed to facilitate public involvement in their legislative processes as required by sections 72(1)(a) and 118(1)(a) of the Constitution. DFL alleged that no public hearings were held and no invitations for written submissions were extended to the public regarding these Bills at the NCOP and provincial legislature levels, despite requests from interested parties. The National Assembly had conducted public hearings, which DFL accepted as compliant. When the application was launched, all Bills except the Sterilisation Amendment Act had been promulgated. DFL sought a declaration that Parliament failed to fulfill its constitutional obligations.

Legal Issues

  • What is the nature and scope of the constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in legislative processes under sections 72(1)(a) and 118(1)(a)?
  • Does the Constitutional Court have exclusive jurisdiction under section 167(4)(e) to decide whether Parliament has failed to fulfill a constitutional obligation?
  • Is it competent for the Constitutional Court to grant declaratory relief regarding parliamentary proceedings before, during, or after the legislative process?
  • Did the NCOP and provincial legislatures comply with their constitutional obligations to facilitate public involvement?
  • What is the appropriate remedy if constitutional obligations were not fulfilled?
  • What is the relationship between representative and participatory democracy in South Africa's constitutional framework?

Judicial Outcome

The majority declared that Parliament failed to comply with its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement before passing the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act 38 of 2004 and the Traditional Health Practitioners Act 35 of 2004. Both Acts were declared invalid, but the order of invalidity was suspended for 18 months to enable Parliament to re-enact them in compliance with the Constitution. The constitutional challenges relating to the Dental Technicians Amendment Act 24 of 2004 and the Sterilisation Amendment Act 3 of 2005 were dismissed. The respondents were ordered to pay 60% of the applicant's costs, excluding costs related to the joinder of provincial legislature speakers and costs from the hearing on 23 August 2005.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Sections 72(1)(a) and 118(1)(a) of the Constitution impose justiciable obligations on the NCOP and provincial legislatures to facilitate public involvement in their legislative processes. (2) This duty must be fulfilled reasonably, with reasonableness being an objective standard sensitive to the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature and importance of the legislation, its impact on the public, and practical considerations. (3) The Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction under section 167(4)(e) to decide whether Parliament has failed to fulfill a constitutional obligation, as distinct from deciding on the constitutional validity of legislation. (4) Where Parliament decides that public hearings are the appropriate method to facilitate public involvement and communicates this to interested parties, failure to hold those hearings may constitute unreasonable conduct and breach of the constitutional obligation. (5) Legislation adopted in violation of section 72(1)(a) is invalid where the failure to facilitate public involvement was unreasonable. (6) Standing to challenge legislation on public involvement grounds requires that the applicant sought and was denied an opportunity to be heard, and launched the application as soon as practicable after promulgation.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made several important observations: (1) Public involvement in law-making strengthens rather than undermines representative democracy by responding to its functional deficits and promoting civic dignity, legitimacy of legislation, and counterbalancing secret lobbying. (2) The principle of public participation has ancient origins in South Africa through imbizo, lekgotla, and bosberaad, and this ethos informs the constitutional structure. (3) International law recognizes the right to political participation, including taking part in the conduct of public affairs, though the precise scope varies among jurisdictions. (4) The Constitution's emphasis on accountability, responsiveness and openness in section 1(d) supports a participatory democratic model. (5) While courts should be cautious about interfering in parliamentary proceedings, they have a duty to enforce the Constitution when necessary. (6) The forms of facilitating public participation are capable of infinite variation, but what matters is that a reasonable opportunity is offered to the public to know about issues and have an adequate say. (7) Sachs J cautioned against automatic invalidation of legislation for any failure to comply with public involvement obligations, preferring incremental evolution on a case-by-case basis. (8) The minority expressed concern about using reasonableness as a test for judging parliamentary conduct and emphasized the importance of the right to vote and representative democracy.

Legal Significance

This landmark case establishes important principles regarding public participation in the legislative process in South Africa. It affirms that: (1) South Africa's democracy contains both representative and participatory elements, and public involvement in law-making is constitutionally mandated. (2) The duty to facilitate public involvement is justiciable and must be fulfilled reasonably, taking into account the nature and importance of legislation. (3) The Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether Parliament has failed to fulfill constitutional obligations under section 167(4)(e). (4) The Court can declare legislation invalid where the process of adoption failed to comply with constitutional requirements for public involvement. (5) The case provides guidance on when public hearings are necessary and emphasizes that legislatures cannot make promises about public participation and then renege on them without consequences. (6) It establishes standing requirements for challenging legislation on public involvement grounds. The case significantly impacts parliamentary procedure and reinforces the importance of participatory democracy in South Africa's constitutional order. It demonstrates judicial willingness to enforce procedural constitutional requirements even against Parliament, while respecting the separation of powers through suspended orders of invalidity.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 46 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • August and Another v Electoral Commission and Others1999 (3) SA 1 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the description of universal adult suffrage as one of the foundational values of the constitutional order and the vote as a badge of dignity and…

  • Certification of the Amended Text of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996CCT 37/96 (delivered 4 December 1996)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of separation of powers and the different roles of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches under the Constitution.

  • Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education2000 (10) BCLR 1051 (CC); CCT 4/00
    Cites

    Cited for principles of tolerance and civility and respect for diversity demanded by the Constitution.

  • 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
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the Constitution must be interpreted in its textual and historical context.

Cited By 52 Cases

  • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    Cites

    Cited for the constitutional principle of separation of powers requiring that courts must not interfere in parliamentary processes unless mandated by the…

  • Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others(CCT 54/09) [2010] ZACC 4
    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.

  • AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others; Minister of Police v AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others[2021] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited alongside Mwelase for the court's obligation to act in the interests of justice.

  • Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 39/10) [2010] ZACC 26
    Cites

Practice This Case

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

  • Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others2001 (1) SA 46 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the Constitution imposes obligations that must be fulfilled and illustrates the general approach to constitutional obligations.

  • Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others; Mahlaule and Another v Minister of Social Development and OthersCCT 12/03 and CCT 13/03, decided on 4 March 2004
    Applies

    Applied to hold that this Court has jurisdiction to consider provisions in a statute that have not yet been brought into operation, based on section 172(2)(a)…

  • Matatiele Municipality and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and OthersCase CCT 73/05 (Constitutional Court, decided 27 February 2006)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that provisions in the Constitution that appear to be in conflict should be construed in a manner that harmonizes them.

  • 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 principles of separation of powers and the appropriate circumstances in which courts may make orders that affect the legislative process.

  • The Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control v Rodney Adrian Love(170/2020) [2021] ZASCA 44
    Considers

    Extensively considered regarding jurisdiction under section 167(4)(e) and whether the duty to facilitate public involvement is a constitutional obligation. The…

  • The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa and Another: In re Ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others2000 (2) SA 674 (CC); 2000 (3) BCLR 241 (CC); Case CCT 31/99
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction to decide on the constitutionality of a bill is limited to circumstances anticipated in…

  • 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)
    Follows

    Followed for the proposition that the phrase 'constitutional obligation' in section 167(4)(e) should be given a narrow meaning to avoid conflict with section…

  • The President of the Republic of South Africa v Democratic Alliance & others(664/17) [2018] ZASCA 79 (31 May 2018)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the obligations imposed by the Constitution must be fulfilled and that courts are required to ensure all branches of government…

  • The State v Sipho Zakele NtseleCCT 25/97 (decided 14 October 1997)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts should afford a remedy that is not only effective but also seen to be effective to make concrete the founding values of the…

  • Cited for the principle that consultation in good faith with a view to reach a result is a familiar concept in South African law.

  • Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others
    Cites

    Cited at para 244 (Van der Westhuizen J dissenting) for the principle of consultation in good faith.

  • Billy Lesedi Masetlha v The President of the Republic of South Africa and Manala Elias Manzini(CCT 01/07) [2007] ZACC 20
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the legislature must facilitate public involvement in its law-making processes.

  • Crawford Lindsay Von Abo v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 67/08) [2009] ZACC 15
    Applies

    Applied to distinguish between conduct involving crucial political questions under section 167(4)(e) (exclusive jurisdiction) and other presidential conduct…

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

    The Court applies principles from Doctors for Life regarding the limits of judicial intervention in the functional independence of other branches of government…

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

    The court cited this case for the proposition that interpretation must give effect to fundamental constitutional values of openness, transparency and…

  • Frederick Coenrad Daniel v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 34/13) [2013] ZACC 24
    Applies

    Court applies this case to construe section 167(4)(e) read with section 172(2)(a) to conclude that 'fulfil a constitutional obligation' should be given a…

  • Fusion Properties 233 CC v Stellenbosch Municipality(932/2019) [2021] ZASCA 10 (29 January 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts should not encroach on the exclusive domain of the legislature.

  • Getthrough Investments v Minister of Lands, Agriculture Water and Rural Resettlement and OthersHH 162-22, HC 4729/21
    Applies

    Applied the principle that courts must observe constitutional limits and should not interfere in processes of other branches of government unless mandated by…

  • Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 48/10) [2011] ZACC 6
    Applies

    Applied to define the obligation of Parliament to facilitate public involvement in the legislative process.

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

    Cited for the importance of participation in the parliamentary process and linking participatory and representative democracy.

  • Hebert Gomba and Others v Movement for Democratic Change (T) and OthersHH 611-21, HC 4803/20
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts must be conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority and that the judiciary should not interfere in the process of…

  • Innocent Gonese and Jessie Majome v President of Zimbabwe and OthersCCZ 10/2018; Const. Application No. CCZ 80/2016
    Considers

    The court considered pronouncements from this case regarding the distinction between procedural prerequisites and constitutional obligations in determining…

  • 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 courts are the ultimate guardians of the Constitution and have a constitutional obligation to ensure that other branches of…

  • Jonathan Nathaniel Moyo and Others v Austin Zvoma N.O. Clerk of Parliament of Zimbabwe and AnotherHH 28-2010; HC 4540/08
    Follows

    Court endorses the approach that courts should be loath to interfere with internal proceedings of Parliament unless applicants have attempted to exhaust…

  • Joyce Teurai Ropa Mujuru v The President of Zimbabwe and OthersCCZ 8/18; Const. Application No. CCZ 75/16
    Cites

    Cited for the distinction between constitutional provisions that impose obligations that are readily ascertainable and those which impose a primary obligation…

  • King N.O. and Others v De Jager and Others[2021] ZACC 4
    Cites

    This Court held that the Constitution must be read harmoniously.

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

    Applied to determine prematurity; courts intervene in exceptional cases where substantial relief cannot be afforded once the process is completed because the…

  • Lindiwe Mazibuko, MP v Max Vuyisile Sisulu, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly)(CCT 115/12) [2013] ZACC 28
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the Assembly has the constitutional authority to determine and control its internal arrangements, proceedings and procedures.

  • Livison Chikutu & Ors v Minister of Lands & OrsHH 02-22 HC 862/21
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that courts must observe constitutional limits of their authority and should not interfere in processes of other branches of…

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

    Cited for the principle that government consists of a partnership between the three spheres of government, governed by principles of cooperative government.

  • Mario Gaspare Oriani-Ambrosini, MP v Maxwell Vuyisile Sisulu, MP Speaker of the National Assembly(CCT 16/12) [2012] ZACC 27
    Cites

    Cited for the values of representative and participatory democracy and the deliberative nature of the National Assembly.

  • Maximum Profit Recovery (Pty) Ltd v Sakhisizwe Local MunicipalityCase No.: 1086/2019, High Court of South Africa (Eastern Cape Division, Makhanda), unreported judgment delivered 18 March 2025
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the constitutional principle of separation of powers requires other branches of government to refrain from interfering in…

  • Merafong Demarcation Forum and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others[2008] ZACC 10
    Applies

    Applied to determine the requirement to facilitate public involvement in legislative processes and the standards of reasonableness.

  • Minister of Finance and Another v Paper Manufacturers Association of South Africa(567/07) [2008] ZASCA 86 (2 September 2008)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that failure to comply with a precondition can affect the validity of legislation and for the general rule that courts intervene after…

  • Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning of the Western Cape v Lagoonbay Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 41/13) [2013] ZACC 39
    Cites

    Cited alongside Glenister for the principle that courts should not overstep their limits and become overseers of legislative action.

  • Minister of Police and Others v Premier of the Western Cape and Others(CCT 13/13) [2013] ZACC 33
    Cites

    The court cites this case to explain the rationale behind exclusive jurisdiction and the importance of narrow construction of section 167(4).

  • Moutse Demarcation Forum and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 40/08) [2011] ZACC 27
    Applies

    Applied to set out the duty to facilitate public participation, the test of reasonableness, and the principles governing notice and meaningful participation in…

  • New Nation Movement NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others[2020] ZACC 11
    Applies

    Court applied principle that provisions in the Constitution should not be construed in conflict with each other; they should be harmonised.

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

    Cited for the principle that courts must be conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority and observe the constitutional limits of their authority,…

  • Passionate Fuza and Jonah Wakurawarehwa v The Parliament of Zimbabwe and The President of Zimbabwe N.O.CCZ 2/26; Constitutional Application No. CCZ 36/25
    Applies

    Applied as the principal authority on Parliament's duty to facilitate public involvement; distinguished duty from obligation and used to discuss democratic…

  • Poverty Alleviation Network and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 86/08) [2010] ZACC 5
    Applies

    Applied extensively for the standards governing the constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in legislative processes, including the…

  • Premier: Limpopo Province v Speaker: Limpopo Provincial Legislature and Others(CCT 94/10) [2011] ZACC 25
    Cites

    This case is cited for the principle that only this Court may decide on the constitutionality of parliamentary or provincial Bills under section 79 or 121.

  • President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Quagliani and Others; Goodwin v Director-General, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others(CCT 24/08) [2009] ZACC 1
    Applies

    Court applies principles from Doctors for Life on standing to challenge legislative procedures, timeliness of challenges, presumption of procedural regularity,…

  • Primedia Broadcasting (A Division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd) and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others(784/2015) [2016] ZASCA 142 (29 September 2016)
    Applies

    Ngcobo J's judgment on public access to Parliament as a fundamental part of public involvement in the law-making process is applied.

  • Rinaldo Investments (Pty) Ltd v Giant Concerts CC(311/2011) [2012] ZASCA 34 (29 March 2012)
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished on the basis that public involvement in national legislation differs in scope from the local notice and comment procedure under the Ordinance.

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

    Court cites Doctors for Life regarding constitutional requirement for substantive involvement and engagement of people in political decision-making.

  • Shane Van Straaten v President of the Republic of South Africa[2009] ZACC 2
    Applies

    Court applies the principle from this case that the Constitution precludes courts from considering constitutionality of a bill save in limited circumstances…

  • Smit v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others[2020] ZACC 29
    Cites

    Cited for the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the structure of government.

  • Sonke Gender Justice NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others[2020] ZACC 26
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that this Court must be persuaded that the declaration of invalidity was correctly made before confirming it.

  • South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence(CCT 65/06) [2007] ZACC 10
    Cites

    The Court cites the approach taken in this case to public consultation in the making of legislation.

  • 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 illustrate the importance of participation by the public in a democracy, especially for those who are relatively disempowered.

  • South African Veterinary Association v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others[2018] ZACC 49
    Follows

    Extensively cited for principles including: that failure by either House of Parliament to facilitate public involvement means Parliament as a whole has failed;…

  • South Durban Community Environmental Alliance and Another v The Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others(479/2023) [2025] ZASCA 134 (17 September 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the description of the right to public participation as an 'open-textured programmatic right' that is flexible and changes with ongoing national…

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

    Cited for the characterisation of South African constitutional democracy as representative and participatory.

  • The Green Connection NPC and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and OthersCase no: 5676/2024 (Western Cape Division, Cape Town)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that public participation requires providing reasonable opportunity for interested and affected parties to influence decisions.

  • Tulip Diamonds FZE v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Others(CCT 93/12) [2013] ZACC 19
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that in constitutional standing under section 38, an applicant needs only to allege that an infringement or threat to infringe a Bill…

  • Willem Stephanus Richter v The Minister of Home Affairs and OthersCCT 03/09; CCT 09/09 [Constitutional Court]
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the Constitutional Court occupies a special place in the constitutional order as the highest court on constitutional matters and…

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

    The Court endorsed the Supreme Court of Appeal decision and held that it alone has jurisdiction to determine whether Parliament has fulfilled its obligation to…

  • 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