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

The Commissioner For The South African Revenue Service V Poulter

Citation[2026] ZASCA 68
JurisdictionZA

Facts of the Case

Data not available for this record

Legal Issues

Data not available for this record

Judicial Outcome

Data not available for this record

Ratio Decidendi

Data not available for this record

Obiter Dicta

Data not available for this record

Legal Significance

Data not available for this record

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

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 2 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

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

    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…

  • Department of Land Affairs and Others v Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits (Pty) LtdCCT 69/06, 2007 (6) SA 199 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that reading the text of a provision contextually includes the internal and statutory context.

  • Minister of Finance v Afribusiness NPC[2022] ZACC 4
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a Minister who makes rules contradicting enabling legislation acts ultra vires.

  • Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality(920/2010) [2012] ZASCA 13 (15 March 2012)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the text, context and purpose of legislation must be considered in a unitary interpretive exercise.

  • The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Candice-Jean van der Merwe(20152/2014) [2015] ZASCA 86 (28 May 2015)
    Considers

    The court considers this prior SCA judgment, relied on by SARS, which held that a lay person may not represent a natural person in a court of law.

Practice This Case

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

Explore More Cases

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 Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97