Explore 42 related cases • Click to navigate
On 28 April 2012, Prinsloo J granted an interim interdict prohibiting SANRAL from levying and collecting toll on certain Gauteng roads pending the final…
Cited in relation to the principle of separation of powers underpinning the constraint that judges' function is limited to interpreting legislation.
Cited in support of the doctrine of separation of powers underpinning the principle that the judicial function is limited to interpreting existing law.
The court applies this case for the principle that without statutory authority, the court may not question the merits or wisdom of an administrative decision…
Cited as authority for the test for interim interdicts.
Court cites this case for the proposition that interim interdicts are discretionary due to balance of convenience considerations.
Applied for the principle that it is superfluous to enquire whether a constitutional right exists when the right is clearly sourced from the Constitution, and…
Cited on the principle that appealability should be considered in the interests of justice.
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.
The Court applies principles from National Treasury on assessing the interests of justice in determining appealability of interim orders, including…
Applied to support finding that the reporting order infringes the principle of separation of powers.
The court applies the principle from this case that a prima facie right to preserve pendente lite must be demonstrated, not merely the right to review an…
OUTA is applied to establish the test for granting interim interdicts against state functionaries exercising public power and to determine jurisdiction.
Cited in relation to the interests of justice standard for appealability of interim interdicts.
Cited for what the interests of justice entail when an application for leave to appeal concerns interim relief and for separation of powers considerations in…
Court applies the principle that when deciding whether to interdict the exercise of executive or legislative powers, a court must carefully consider how the…
Cited for the principle that courts should not encroach on the exclusive domain of the legislature.
Cited for the requirement that courts must assess whether or not it is constitutionally appropriate to grant an interdict and observe the doctrine of…
Court applied this decision which held that it is inappropriate to permit an applicant to advance a sectarian interest under the guise of being an amicus.
Cited for the principle that when the interests of justice so dictate, this Court may hear an appeal against a temporary interdict.
Cited for the principle that whether harm apprehended by the claimant amounts to a breach of a fundamental right is an important consideration when applying…
Court applies the principles from OUTA at para 14 governing admission of amici curiae: must advance relevant, useful and new contentions and not adopt a…
Applied for the principle that separation of powers means that the Constitution requires courts to ensure all branches of government act within the law, but…
The court applies the principles governing the admission and contribution of an amicus curiae, requiring that an amicus must make submissions that are useful…
Cited for the principle of separation of powers in relation to the permissible scope of court orders directed at government.
Applied the principle that prima facie right must be one to which irreparable harm would ensue if not protected by interdict, and the principle that courts…
Cited for the principle that the prima facie right an applicant must establish is one to which, if not protected by an interdict, irreparable harm would ensue.
Cited for cautionary words as to the grant of injunctive relief that restrains the exercise of executive or legislative competence.
The Court applied the OUTA test for determining whether an appeal against an order granting temporary relief should be heard, finding that none of the…
Cited for the proposition that the ordering of public resources is pre-eminently a matter that falls within the competence and remit of the executive arm of…
Cited for the principle that interlocutory orders may be appealable based on the interests of justice test.
Court cites this case as confirming that the foundational interim interdict principles continue to govern the inquiry under the constitutional dispensation,…
Applied to establish the principles governing appeals against interim orders, including the interests of justice test, the need to avoid usurping the role of…
The case is applied to affirm that the duty to determine how public resources are to be drawn upon and re-ordered lies in the heartland of Executive Government…
The High Court applied OUTA in dismissing the temporary interdict application, finding that the Municipality suffered no irreparable harm; this Court also…
Applied for the test that the prima facie right a claimant must establish is not merely the right to approach a court to review an administrative decision, but…
Court applies the refined constitutional test for interim interdicts established in OUTA, emphasising that the test must be applied cognisant of the normative…
Cited for the principle that a court hearing an interim interdict need not determine the cogency of review grounds.
Cited to support the principle that intervention in unconcluded lower court proceedings is exercised only in cases of great rarity and that appealability of…
Court applies the principle of separation of powers that courts must refrain from entering the exclusive terrain of the Executive and Legislative branches…
The court below relied on this case for the proposition that policy decisions are not subject to review, but the SCA distinguished it, holding that the…
Cited to emphasise the courts must be cognisant of the exclusive sphere of the executive and legislative arms of government.
Distinguished on the basis that in the present case the Minister and SABC failed to discharge their constitutional duty and acted irrationally.
Cited for the test whether the interests of justice permit granting leave to appeal against an interim order; also for factors relevant to whether interim…
The Constitutional Court judgment in OUTA is followed for the propositions that the doctrine of the separation of powers must be honoured, that courts must…
Cited for the proposition that the interests of justice require that an order which cannot withstand scrutiny should be set aside.
Court applies the test from this case regarding the balance of convenience inquiry and separation of powers harm when considering whether to grant a…
Court applies the principle that temporary restraint against exercise of statutory power should only be granted in the clearest of cases after careful…
Cited for the principle that leave to appeal an interim order may be granted in limited circumstances where the interests of justice dictate.
Followed for the principle that interim interdicts against the exercise of statutory power must only be granted in exceptional cases where a strong case is…
The court cites OUTA for the principle that the court must ensure the objects, spirit and purport of the Constitution are promoted when exercising discretion.
The court cites this case to support the doctrine of separation of powers, emphasizing that courts may not usurp powers entrusted to other branches of…
Cited as part of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court on appealability and the interests of justice standard.
Applied for the interests of justice test for leave to appeal and the principle that what constitutes the interests of justice depends on a careful evaluation…
Followed the principle that the operative standard for appealability of interim orders is the interests of justice.