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

Trencon Construction (Pty) Limited v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited and Another

Citation[2015] ZACC 22
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Administrative LawConstitutional 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
Procurement Law

Facts of the Case

The Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) issued a request for proposals for a building contract to upgrade its head office. Trencon and other contractors submitted proposals. The tender process had two phases. In the first phase, Trencon was shortlisted. In the second phase, tenders were evaluated on price and empowerment points. Trencon submitted the lowest bid at R117,112,972.21 (excluding VAT) and received the highest points overall. During the evaluation, Trencon indicated it would charge a 0.6% monthly escalation if the site handover was delayed from September to October 2012. The IDC's Quantity Surveyors, Snow Consultants, Support Services, and Procurement Committee all recommended Trencon for the award. However, the Executive Management Committee (Exco) awarded the tender to Basil Read, declaring Trencon's bid non-responsive because Trencon failed to keep its price fixed for the 120-day tender evaluation period. Basil Read had submitted its proposal 14 minutes after the deadline. Trencon challenged the decision in the High Court.

Legal Issues

  • What is the test for establishing exceptional circumstances justifying a substitution order under section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA)?
  • Were there exceptional circumstances in this case justifying a substitution order?
  • Can a substitution order be made where the tender validity period has expired?
  • What is the standard for appellate court interference with a High Court order made under section 8(1) of PAJA?
  • Should the Supreme Court of Appeal have interfered with the High Court's order?

Judicial Outcome

Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was upheld. The Supreme Court of Appeal's order was set aside. The North Gauteng High Court's order was reinstated, save for deletion of paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 (relating to good faith negotiations, which the parties agreed fell under private law). The tender was awarded to Trencon. The IDC was ordered to pay Trencon's costs in the Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court, including costs of two counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi is: (1) Under section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) of PAJA, a court may grant a substitution order in exceptional circumstances. The test requires a cumulative finding that: (a) the court is in as good a position as the administrator to make the decision, and (b) the decision is a foregone conclusion (meaning only one proper outcome exists). Thereafter, other factors (delay, bias, incompetence) must be considered. The ultimate test is whether substitution is just and equitable, considering fairness to all parties. (2) A court is in as good a position as the administrator where the administrator has already exercised its specialized expertise and the court has all relevant information. (3) A foregone conclusion exists where there is only one proper outcome and remittal would be a waste of time, particularly where the administrator is bound by legislation (e.g., section 2(1)(f) of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act requires awarding to the highest points earner unless objective criteria justify otherwise). (4) Delay arising from the litigation process itself should not easily defeat a substitution order; appeals should be decided on facts existing when the original decision was made. (5) The tender validity period is held in abeyance during litigation challenging an award made within that period. (6) Section 8(1) of PAJA confers a discretion in the "true sense" - an appellate court may only interfere if the lower court failed to exercise discretion judicially, applied wrong principles, misdirected itself on facts, or reached an unreasonable decision.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made several obiter observations: (1) Judicial deference must be understood within the separation of powers doctrine, but courts retain constitutional powers and obligations to declare unconstitutional conduct invalid and provide effective remedies. (2) The distinction between public law (tender award process) and private law (post-award contractual negotiations and adjustments) must be maintained and not collapsed. Price adjustments and contractual disputes arising after tender award fall within private law. (3) If organs of state could simply invoke boilerplate tender clauses reserving discretion not to award a tender without more, courts would virtually never have power to grant substitution orders, which would undermine PAJA. (4) Organs of state can only exercise powers conferred on them - they cannot confer power on themselves (principle of legality). (5) Procurement disputes involving organs of state must be resolved expediently, with consideration for impact on the public purse. (6) The fact that an administrator acted in good faith should be considered when determining remedies, but does not preclude substitution where other factors favor it. (7) It would be inappropriate to incentivize delay by allowing parties to appeal knowing that time elapsed during litigation would make substitution unavailable.

Legal Significance

This case is a landmark judgment on administrative remedies in South African law. It definitively clarifies the test for "exceptional circumstances" under section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) of PAJA, establishing a structured cumulative approach requiring courts to determine whether they are in as good a position as the administrator and whether the decision is a foregone conclusion, before considering other factors like delay, bias or incompetence. The judgment emphasizes that even in exceptional circumstances cases, courts must balance judicial deference to administrators with their constitutional obligation to provide effective remedies for rights violations. It also clarifies the standard of appellate interference with discretionary remedial orders under PAJA (discretion in the "true sense"), reinforcing principles of judicial comity and finality. The case is significant for procurement law, demonstrating that courts will intervene to correct unlawful tender awards where the correct decision is clear, the evaluation process is complete, and the administrator has no residual discretion. It also clarifies the distinction between public law (tender award) and private law (post-award contractual negotiations).

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 75 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Billiton Aluminium SA Ltd t/a Hillside Aluminium v Ntokozo Archibald Khanyile(CCT 72/09) [2010] ZACC 3
    Applies

    Applied principle that an appeal should ordinarily be decided on the facts that existed when the original decision was made and not on new circumstances.

  • Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and others(1029/2018) [2019] ZASCA 131 (30 September 2019)
    Applies

    Applied principles of separation of powers and the constitutional obligation of courts to provide effective relief for infringements of constitutional rights.

  • 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
    Cites

    Cited in support of the interpretation that factors under exceptional circumstances enquiry are independent.

  • Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and OthersCCT 7/98 [Decided on 14 October 1998]
    Applies

Cited By 78 Cases

  • Aquila Steel (South Africa) (Pty) Limited v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others[2018] ZACC 5
    Applies

    Applied for the test that the High Court weighed the options available and exercised its discretion in the true sense, and that an appellate court may not…

  • Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Anglo Gold Ashanti Limited t/a Anglo Gold Ashanti and Others[2021] ZACC 42
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts may decide moot appeals under certain circumstances when the interests of justice require it.

  • BW Brightwater Way Props (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Development Corporation(1235/2019) [2021] ZASCA 47 (19 April 2021)
    Applies

    The court applies the Trencon principle regarding appellate review of discretion, stating that an appellate court may interfere only if the discretion was not…

  • Caledon River Properties (Pty) Ltd t/a Magwa Construction and Another v Special Investigating Unit and Another(375 & 419/2024) [2026] ZASCA 05 (16 January 2026)
    Cites

Practice This Case

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

Applied the principle of the rule of law that organs of state can only exercise power that has been conferred onto them.

  • Florence v Government of the Republic of South Africa[2014] ZACC 22
    Applies

    Applied the principle that discretion in the true sense exists in the award of remedies under section 35 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act and the standard…

  • Haakdoornbult Boerdery CC v M M Mphela & 217 Others(553/05) [2007] ZASCA 69
    Cites

    Cited as accepting and applying the principles on discretion and appellate interference from previous authorities.

  • Imraahn Ismail Mukaddam v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 131/12) [2013] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited as accepting and applying the principles from Knox and Media Workers Association on discretion and appellate interference.

  • Islandsite Investments 180 (Pty) Ltd v The National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others(894/2022) [2023] ZASCA 166 (1 December 2023)
    Cites

    Cited as accepting and applying the principles on discretion and appellate interference from previous authorities.

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

    Followed Bato Star in holding that matters relating to PAJA are constitutional matters.

  • Lilian Dudley v The City of Cape Town and Ivan TomsCCT 5/04
    Applies

    Applied the principle that matters relating to the interpretation and application of PAJA are constitutional matters and cited for approach to judicial review…

  • Logbro Properties CC v S A Bedderson, NO and OthersCase no: 372/2001
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that procedural fairness may require affording tenderers an opportunity to make representations on any factor that might lead the…

  • National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and OthersCCT 10/99; 1999 (2) SA 1 (CC); 2000 (2) BCLR 39 (CC)
    Applies

    Applied the standard for appellate court interference with a discretion in the true sense, requiring that the discretion was not exercised judicially or was…

  • Rail Commuters Action Group and Others v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail and Others2004 CCT 56/03
    Cites

    Cited for principles applicable to the introduction of new evidence on appeal.

  • SA Bank of Athens Limited v May van ZylCase No 431/03 (SCA, unreported judgment delivered 21 February 2005)
    Cites

    Cited as example where discretion in the true sense was found in the award of damages.

  • The Gauteng Gambling Board v Silverstar Development Limited and OthersCase no: 80/04
    Applies

    Applied consideration of whether court is in as good a position as administrator and the broader notion of fairness when deciding exceptional circumstances for…

  • Trevor B Giddey NO v J C Barnard and PartnersCase CCT 65/05 (decided 1 September 2006)
    Cites

    Cited as example where discretion in the true sense was found in matters of costs.

  • Umso Construction (Pty) Ltd v MEC for Roads and Public Works Eastern Cape Province(20800/2014) [2016] ZASCA 61 (14 April 2016)
    Considers

    Considered as authority on the exceptional circumstances test, noting it is unclear whether the considerations are cumulative or discrete.

  • Cited for the proposition that the discretion under s 172(1)(b) of the Constitution is a discretion in the true sense requiring a value-laden judgment informed…

  • Caledon River Properties (Pty) Ltd t/a Magwa Construction and Another v Special Investigating Unit and Another(375/2024) [2026] ZASCA 05 (16 January 2026)
    Cites

    The court cites Trencon to explain that the discretion under s 172(1)(b) is a true discretion requiring a value-laden judgment informed by all relevant facts…

  • Capital Newspapers Proprietary Limited and Another v Media24 Holdings Limited and OthersCase No: 259/CAC/Oct24
    Cites

    Court cites Trencon on the exceptional nature of substitution remedies under PAJA and the requirement that a court defer to the administrator in polycentric…

  • Central Energy Fund SOC Ltd and Another v Venus Rays Trade (Pty) Ltd and Others(119/2021) [2022] ZASCA 54
    Applies

    Applied for the standard of appellate interference with a remedial discretion: the court must be satisfied that the discretion was not exercised judicially or…

  • City of Cape Town v Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd[2017] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the SCA exercised a narrow discretion in refusing to grant condonation.

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Nambiti Technologies (Pty) Ltd(20580/2014) [2015] ZASCA 167 (26 November 2015)
    Considers

    The court considers and distinguishes Trencon's statement that regulation 10(4) constrains the discretion to cancel tenders, noting that Trencon was not…

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Medtronic International Trading S.A.R.L(456/2021) [2023] ZASCA 20 (03 March 2023)
    Cites

    Cited regarding the default position under PAJA that a reviewing court should remit a matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration unless exceptional…

  • Community Healthcare Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v The Competition Tribunal and OthersCase No. 44/CAC/Feb05
    Follows

    The Court follows and applies the interpretation of section 53(1)(c)(v) of the Competition Act established in this case, holding that the discretion to…

  • De Beers Marine (Pty) Ltd v Harry Dilley (Pty) Ltd(413/2022) [2023] ZASCA 110 (19 July 2023)
    Applies

    Applied for the principles distinguishing between true and loose discretions, and for the standard of appellate intervention.

  • Economic Freedom Fighters v Gordhan and Others; Public Protector and Another v Gordhan and Others[2020] ZACC 10
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that an appellate court may interfere with a true discretion if the decision was influenced by a misdirection on applicable…

  • EH Hassim Hardware (Pty) Ltd v Fab Tanks CC(1129/2016) [2017] ZASCA 145 (13 October 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a court's discretion must be judicially exercised.

  • Engen Petroleum Limited v Rissik Street One Stop CC t/a Rissik Street Engen and Another(209/2020) [2021] ZASCA 63 (26 May 2021)
    Applies

    Court applied the principle that where a court a quo's exercise of discretion was influenced by wrong principles, the appeal court is entitled to interfere.

  • George Local Municipality v Cape Estates Properties (Pty) Ltd and OthersCase no: 880/2023; ZASCA 39 (8 April 2025)
    Cites

    Cited at paragraph 35 for the proposition that exceptional circumstances warranting a substitution order under PAJA s 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) must be determined in the…

  • Goodman Malepe and Others v Mega Volt Loden Electrical (Pty) LtdCase No: JA42/2023 (Labour Appeal Court)
    Applies

    The court applies the principles explained in Trencon regarding the distinction between discretion in the true sense versus loose sense, and the standard of…

  • Head of Department, Mpumalanga Department of Education v Valozone 268 CC(837/2015) [2017] ZASCA 30 (29 March 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a tender may only be cancelled if one of the grounds stipulated in regulation 8(4) exists.

  • Head of Department: Western Cape Education Department & another v S (Women's Legal Centre as Amicus Curiae)(1209/2016) [2017] ZASCA 187 (13 December 2017)
    Considers

    The court below considered this case on the principle that in administrative review contexts, remittal rather than substitution is generally the prudent course.

  • Hotz and Others v University of Cape Town[2017] ZACC 10
    Applies

    Applied to explain the standard by which an appellate court may interfere with a discretionary order and the distinction between discretion in the true sense…

  • Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors and Others v East Rand Member District of Chartered Accountants and Others(945/2022) [2024] ZASCA 114 (22 July 2024)
    Applies

    Applied to establish that substitution of an administrative action is an extraordinary remedy; remittal is almost always prudent and courts ordinarily lack the…

  • Jakobus Petrus Marais N.O. and Others v Jacques Daniels and Others (and related cases)LCC 130/2023; LCC 63/2023; LCC 98/2023; LCC 27/2023; LCC 145/2022; LCC 163/2023; LCC 162/2023; LCC 105/2024 (Land Court)
    Cites

    The Court cites Kalagadi Manganese in relation to issues that may arise regarding the requirements for mediation.

  • Joan Cynthia Griessel NO & others v Harold Lee De Kock(334/18) [2019] ZASCA 95 (6 June 2019)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that failure to exercise a discretion judicially is a material misdirection entitling an appellate court to interfere.

  • Knoop and Another NNO v Gupta (No 2)(116/2020) [2020] ZASCA 163
    Cites

    Cited as authority for the nature of discretion involving disparate and incommensurable features.

  • Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister in the Presidency and Others[2016] ZACC 45
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that this Court has no basis to interfere with a lower court's exercise of discretion unless it was exercised unjudicially or on a…

  • Lenette Janse De Wit & Others v Toerien De Wit N O & Others[2026] ZASCA 23 (06 March 2026)
    Applies

    The court applies the principles regarding appellate interference with a lower court's discretionary decision, requiring that the lower court has not exercised…

  • Liesching and Others v The State[2018] ZACC 25
    Applies

    Applied for the principles governing appellate interference with a discretion in the true sense.

  • Lieutenant Colonel KB O'Brien NO v The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others(1271/2021) [2022] ZASCA 178
    Applies

    Applied to explain the distinction between discretion in the 'true' and 'loose' sense and the standard of interference by an appellate court.

  • L Mzalisi NO & others v Emmanuel Paulking Oche Ochogwu & another(630/2018) [2019] ZASCA 138 (01 October 2019)
    Cites

    Cited for the principles governing appellate interference with discretionary decisions, including that discretion must be exercised judicially.

  • Lutzkie v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service[2026] ZASCA 11 (06 February 2026); Case No 1135/2023
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of discretion only if the lower court did not bring an unbiased judgment to…

  • Macsteel Tube and Pipe, a division of Macsteel Service Centres SA (Pty) Ltd v Vowles Properties (Pty) Ltd(680/2020) [2021] ZASCA 178 (17 December 2021)
    Cites

    Court cites Trencon for the principle that a court's discretion ought not to be interfered with lightly on appeal.

  • Mafoko Security Patrols (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mjayeli Security (Pty) Ltd and Others(590/2024) [2025] ZASCA 179 (28 November 2025)
    Applies

    The standard for appellate intervention when a high court exercises its discretion to fashion a just and equitable remedy in judicial review proceedings is…

  • Mathale v Linda and Another[2015] ZACC 38
    Applies

    Applied to establish the circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with a lower court's discretionary decision.

  • MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS(401/2023) [2025] ZASCA 91 (20 June 2025)
    Cites

    Constitutional Court authority on discretion in the true sense and when appellate court may interfere; cited by Kgoele JA on standard of review of…

  • Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal v Nkandla Local Municipality and Others[2021] ZACC 46
    Cites

    Cited for the strict test applicable to appellate interference with exercises of discretion.

  • Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Another v Mamasedi(622/2017) [2017] ZASCA 157 (24 November 2017)
    Applies

    Court applies the test set out in this case for when exceptional circumstances permit a court to substitute or vary administrative action under s 8(1)(c)(ii)…

  • Minister of Health and Another v Alliance of Natural Health Products (South Africa)(256/2021) [2022] ZASCA 49 (11 April 2022)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that a true or strict discretion (such as suspension of invalidity) may not lightly be interfered with on appeal.

  • Minister of Home Affairs v Rahim and Others[2016] ZACC 3
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that an appellate court ought to be slow to substitute its own decision on a true discretion, including general damages, unless the…

  • Minister of Home Affairs v Saidi(294/2016) [2017] ZASCA 40 (30 March 2017)
    Applies

    Applied to determine that the court should only substitute its own discretion for that of the administrator in exceptional circumstances and to set out the…

  • Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others v Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others(58/2023) [2024] ZASCA 84 (3 June 2024)
    Applies

    Applied to state the test for interference with a discretionary decision on appeal, namely that the discretion must have not been exercised judicially or been…

  • Mochebelele v Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng & others(377/2018) [2019] ZASCA 82 (31 May 2019)
    Applies

    Applied to identify the two key factors to be considered when deciding whether to substitute a decision: whether a court is in as good a position as the…

  • Mosalasuping Phillip Morudi & 70 others v NC Housing Services & Development Co Ltd & others(903/2016) [2017] ZASCA 121 (22 September 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that an appellate court can interfere with a discretionary order of a lower court where the decision was influenced by wrong…

  • Msibithi Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v African Legend Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others(628/2023) [2025] ZASCA 61 (14 May 2025)
    Cites

    The court cites Trencon for the distinction between a discretion in the true sense and one in the loose sense, and the test for appellate interference.

  • Mystic River Investments 45 (Pty) Ltd & Another v Zayeed Paruk Incorporated & Others(432/2022) [2023] ZASCA 54
    Cites

    Court cites Trencon for the principle that in order to determine the standard of interference on appeal, a distinction must be made between discretion in the…

  • NAD Property Income Fund (Pty) Ltd v The South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited and Another(710/2024) [2026] ZASCA 42 (1 April 2026)
    Cites

    Cited for the distinction between 'true discretion' and discretion in the loose sense, to establish that determination of just and equitable compensation is…

  • 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 Trencon test for when a court may substitute its own decision for that of an administrator in exceptional cases under PAJA s 8(c)(ii)(aa).

  • National Credit Regulator v National Consumer Tribunal and Others (BMW Financial Services, Volkswagen Financial Services, Mercedes-Benz Financial Services matters)(667/2023) [2025] ZASCA 132 (12 September 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a court of appeal has limited scope for interfering with the exercise of discretion by a lower court, interference warranted only…

  • National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others[2021] ZACC 47
    Applies

    This Court considered and applied the test for exceptional circumstances under which a court may substitute an administrative decision, highlighting factors…

  • Pan African Mineral Development Company (Pty) Ltd & others v Aquila Steel (S Africa) (Pty) Ltd(179/2017) [2017] ZASCA 165 (29 November 2017)
    Applies

    Applied for the test determining when a court may substitute its decision for that of an administrative decision-maker, focusing on whether the decision is a…

  • Pepkor Holdings Limited and Another v Lewis Stores Proprietary LimitedCase No: 271/CAC/Jul25
    Follows

    The approach to intervention applications endorsed in Community Healthcare, which followed Anglo South Africa Capital, is adopted in this case.

  • Psychological Society of South Africa v Qwelane and Others[2016] ZACC 48
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that discretion is in the true or narrow sense and that another court cannot substitute its decision simply because it disagrees if…

  • Public Protector v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others[2020] ZACC 28
    Applies

    Applied for the definition and nature of a discretion in the true sense where a lower court has a wide range of equally permissible options available.

  • Queen Sibongile Winnifred Zulu v Queen Buhle Mathe and Others(1062/2022) [2024] ZASCA 22 (08 March 2024)
    Applies

    Applied for the test that a court of appeal is ordinarily not entitled to substitute its discretion for that of a lower court in the absence of misdirection or…

  • Rajan Ramnath Sewpersadh v The Minister of Finance(923/2018) [2019] ZASCA 117 (23 September 2019)
    Applies

    Applied to support the court substituting its own order rather than remitting the matter back to the Appeal Board, in order to avoid delay and unnecessary…

  • Road Accident Fund and Others v Mabunda Incorporated and Others; Minister of Transport v Road Accident Fund and Others(1147/2020) [2022] ZASCA 169
    Considers

    The Constitutional Court's dictum on cancellation of tenders was doubted and distinguished; the court considers whether Trencon binds it but finds it…

  • Selective Empowerment Investments 1 Limited v Companies and Intellectual Property Commission(1325/2023) [2025] ZASCA 71 (30 May 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that when the high court misdirects itself in the exercise of discretion, this Court is at large to interfere with the decision.

  • Simvumile Mambafula v Alfred Nzo District MunicipalityCase No: 2715/2024 (High Court of South Africa, Eastern Cape Division - Mthatha)
    Applies

    Applied to explain that the court's interventionist remedial powers under section 8(1)(c) of PAJA are justified where exceptional circumstances exist.

  • Sinenkani Football Club v South African Football Association and OthersCase No: 1461/2025 (Eastern Cape Division, Mthatha)
    Cites

    Court cites the case for how a court must evaluate the factors for granting substitutory relief, including whether a court is in as good a position as the…

  • Siyangena Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others(487/2021) [2022] ZASCA 149 (1 November 2022)
    Applies

    Applied for the standard of appellate review of a discretion exercised by a lower court, namely that an appellate court may not interfere unless satisfied that…

  • South African Heritage Resources Agency and Others v Dr Makaziwe Mandela and Others[2026] ZASCA 6
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the appellate court's power to interfere with a lower court's true discretion is circumscribed.

  • Explore More Cases

    More Administrative Law cases

    • 1. Tapera Sengweni v The Law Society of Zimbabwe 2. Augustine Runesu Chizikani v The Law Society of ZimbabweHH 706-19, LPDT 8/18 and LPDT 27/18
    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • Aaron Shanje v Ticharwa Murehwa and OthersHH 218-18, HC 9346/17
    • Aaron Zhomwe v BHP Minerals CompanyS.C. 3/2001 (Civil Appeal No. 25/2000)
    • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    • Abbott v Overstrand Municipality(99/2015) [2016] ZASCA 68
    • Abdul Kadir Yassin Ismail v Registrar General N.O and Minister of Home AffairsHH 519-17, HC 9899/16

    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