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

Van Zyl v Government of the Republic of South Africa

Citation(170/06) [2007] ZASCA 109
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Public International LawConstitutional LawAdministrative LawDiplomatic Protection

Facts of the Case

The appellants were South African citizens and Lesotho-registered companies who held mineral leases granted by the Government of Lesotho in 1988. These leases conflicted with the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (a treaty between RSA and Lesotho). The Government of Lesotho cancelled the leases in 1991 and revoked them by executive order in 1992. The Lesotho courts set aside both the cancellation and revocation as unlawful. However, after a 58-day trial, the Lesotho courts ultimately found that the main Rampai lease was void ab initio as it did not comply with Lesotho customary law requiring Chiefs' consent. The appellants exhausted appeals in Lesotho and then requested the South African Government to provide diplomatic protection against Lesotho, demanding mediation or international litigation and claiming damages exceeding R3 billion. The RSA Government considered the request but declined, citing policy reasons including respect for Lesotho's judicial system and the sensitive relationship between the two countries. The appellants sought judicial review of this refusal and a mandamus compelling the Government to provide diplomatic protection.

Legal Issues

  • Whether South African citizens have a constitutional right to diplomatic protection under the Constitution
  • Whether the Government has a duty to provide diplomatic protection to its nationals
  • Whether the Government's refusal to grant diplomatic protection was reviewable and irrational
  • Whether the Government was entitled under international law to afford diplomatic protection in the circumstances
  • Whether an international delict had been committed against the appellants
  • Whether the mineral leases were subject to international law or only municipal (Lesotho) law
  • Whether the nationality rule and exhaustion of local remedies requirements were satisfied
  • Whether corporate entities registered in Lesotho could claim diplomatic protection from South Africa

Judicial Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of three counsel for the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principles are: (1) South African citizens have a constitutional right (under s 3 of the Constitution) to request diplomatic protection from their government, but not an enforceable right to receive it. (2) Government has a corresponding constitutional duty to consider such requests and respond appropriately, rationally, and in good faith. (3) The decision whether to grant diplomatic protection and what form it should take is a non-justiciable policy decision within the executive's foreign affairs prerogative. (4) Courts may review whether Government considered a request, and may intervene if Government refuses to consider a legitimate request, acts in bad faith, or acts irrationally, but courts cannot order Government to provide a particular form of diplomatic protection or substitute their judgment for Government's policy decision. (5) Under international law, a state can only provide diplomatic protection where: (a) an international delict has been committed (not merely a breach of municipal law); (b) the victim has the nationality of the sending state; (c) local remedies have been exhausted; and (d) the continuing nationality rule is satisfied. (6) Contracts and property rights governed by municipal law do not automatically become subject to international law unless 'internationalized' by agreement or the nature of the transaction.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made several non-binding observations: (1) Courts should exercise restraint when dealing with allegations of unlawful conduct by sovereign states. (2) The Court severely criticized the appellants' procedural conduct, including ignoring Uniform Rule 53, filing excessive and repetitive affidavits (the reply affidavit was inordinately long and largely valueless), making unsubstantiated allegations, and shifting legal positions. The Court suggested such abusive replying affidavits should be struck out in their entirety and attract adverse costs orders. (3) The Court noted that Mr. van Zyl's belief that "fifty per cent of all court rules are unconstitutional" was not a valid basis for ignoring procedural requirements. (4) While not deciding the point definitively, the Court expressed agreement with Patel J that draft Article 11 of the International Law Commission report (allowing diplomatic protection for shareholders in certain circumstances) does not yet reflect customary international law. (5) The Court observed that the Lesotho Court of Appeal consisted largely of retired South African judges, undermining allegations of bias. (6) The Court noted the irony that the appellants praised Lesotho courts when winning but attacked them as biased when losing. (7) The Court commented on the importance of original documentary evidence rather than reliance on annexures not confirmed in affidavits.

Legal Significance

This case is a leading South African authority on diplomatic protection, clarifying the constitutional and international law framework following Kaunda v President of the RSA. It establishes that: (1) South African citizens have a constitutional entitlement (derived from s 3 of the Constitution regarding citizenship) to request diplomatic protection, but no enforceable right to receive it. (2) Government has a duty to consider such requests rationally and in good faith, but the decision whether and how to provide protection is a non-justiciable policy matter within executive prerogative over foreign affairs. (3) Courts may review whether Government considered a request, but cannot dictate the form of diplomatic protection or substitute their judgment for Government's foreign policy decisions. (4) International law requirements for diplomatic protection (existence of international delict, nationality, exhaustion of local remedies) remain prerequisites that limit when protection can lawfully be granted. The case demonstrates judicial restraint in matters of foreign policy while maintaining a supervisory role over procedural rationality. It also addresses the interface between municipal and international law in the South African legal system.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 4 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Government of the Republic of South Africa v Thabiso Chemicals (Pty) Ltd(148/2007) [2008] ZASCA 112 (25 September 2008)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts should act with restraint when dealing with allegations of unlawful conduct against sovereign states, and for procedural…

  • The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others v Atlantic Fishing Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and OthersCase No: 259/03
    Cites

    Cited for Schutz JA's remarks about unnecessarily prolix replying affidavits and the need for courts to take action against such abuse of process.

Cited By 70 Cases

  • Alix Jean Carmichele v The Minister of Safety and Security and the Minister of JusticeCase No: 310/98 (Unreported Supreme Court of Appeal judgment delivered 2 October 2000)
    Cites

    Cited for the test for determining wrongfulness of omissions in delictual actions for damages.

  • Barnett and Others v Minister of Land Affairs and Others(304/06) [2007] ZASCA 95
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished on the basis that it involved a single act of expropriation, whereas the present case involves wrongful conduct still in the course of being…

  • B[…] E[…] v N[…] T[…] and Others(505/2025) [2026] ZASCA 25 (11 March 2026)
    Applies

    The court applies the balancing exercise for the interests of justice enquiry, considering finality, definitive determination of rights, disposal of issues,…

  • Bharat Kumar Bhana NO and Another v Dipak Gihwala and OthersLCC 07/2012
    Applies

    Court applies Holmes JA's statement that public policy requires a curb against trafficking in essentially personal claims when determining whether a claim can…

  • Brian Garth Batteson N O and Others v Deborah Joubert N O and Another(42/2024) [2025] ZASCA 129 (11 September 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that whether a cession was intended to be in securitatem debiti is a conclusion of law.

  • Brummer v Gorfil Brothers Investments (Pty) Ltd and OthersSaaknommer: 138/97 (Supreme Court of Appeal)
    Cites

    Cited to distinguish between 'interest in the claim' and 'interest in the result of the litigation' and the cedability of a right to satisfaction after litis…

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Link Africa (Pty) Limited and Others[2015] ZACC 29
    Applies

    Applied for the two-stage approach to constitutional challenges based on rights in the Bill of Rights.

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

    This is the High Court judgment the Constitutional Court is reviewing for confirmation; the Constitutional Court found the application for confirmation was…

  • Cyril and Another v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(186/2023) [2024] ZASCA 32 (28 March 2024)
    Applies

    The court applies the summary of considerations for appealability set out in this case, including finality, definitiveness, disposal of substantial portion of…

  • Dingaan Hendrik Nyathi v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health, Gauteng and Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development(CCT 19/07) [2008] ZACC 8
    Cites

    Cited for the two-stage approach to determining constitutionality: whether there is a limitation of rights, and if so, whether the limitation can be justified.

  • Director-General Department of Home Affairs and Another v Mukhamadiva(CCT 61/13) [2013] ZACC 47
    Cites

    Cited for the principles relevant in determining whether an order is appealable, including whether the relief granted was final in its effect, definitive of…

  • DRDGOLD Limited and Another v Nkala and Others(688/2016) [2023] ZASCA 9 (6 February 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the legal position on transmissibility of claims for non-patrimonial damages when litis contestatio is reached.

  • Engen Petroleum Limited v Flotank Transport (Pty) Ltd(876/2020) [2022] ZASCA 98
    Applies

    This Court applied the principle that the correct interpretation of a cession is a question of law, permitting Engen to raise the issue for the first time on…

  • Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Another v Sonae Arauco (Pty) Ltd(1018/2023) [2024] ZASCA 177 (18 December 2024)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that there is no checklist of requirements for appealability and that several considerations need to be weighed up, including…

  • Fegen v Mphakathi(348/2012) [2013] ZASCA 100 (9 September 2013)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that section 14 of the Prescription Act contemplates an acknowledgment of liability to the creditor or his agent.

  • Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (2) BCLR 102 (CC); CCT 5/95
    Cites

    Authority on the test for severability of unconstitutional provisions.

  • Fisher v Natal Rubber Compounders (Pty) Ltd(20640/2014) [2016] ZASCA 33 (24 March 2016)
    Cites

    The court cites this judgment for the proposition that a cession after litis contestatio involves ceding an interest in the result of the litigation rather…

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

    The Land Claims Court awarded Ms Florence R1,498,890 as equitable redress, comprising R1,488,890 as compensation for loss of the right in land (calculated…

  • F W A Lutzkie NO and Another v Zenith Concessions LimitedCase No: 386/2002
    Applies

    Court applies the interpretation that 'debt arising from a bill of exchange' means a debt which has its source or origin in a bill of exchange.

  • Government of the Republic of South Africa v Von Abo(283/10) [2011] ZASCA 65
    Appeal From

    On 29 July 2008, Prinsloo J granted the first order declaring the government's failure to rationally consider the respondent's application for diplomatic…

  • Graham Robert Herbert N.O. and Others v Senqu Municipality and Others(CCT 308/18) [2019] ZACC 31
    Cites

    Cited to show that provisions plainly inconsistent with the Constitution and indefensible need not be suspended even for a limited period.

  • Investec Bank Limited v Erf 436 Elandspoort (Pty) Ltd and Others(410/2019) [2020] ZASCA 104 (16 September 2020)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that an acknowledgement of liability, to interrupt prescription, must be given by a debtor to a creditor or the creditor's agent.

  • Izaacs, Ian Jacobie v The Government of the Republic of South Africa and OthersLCC 2018/206 (4 October 2023)
    Cites

    Court refers to its own earlier judgment which discussed the method of assessment and the first part of the enquiry in placing claimants in the position they…

  • Jacobus Johannes Liebenberg NO and 86 Others v Bergrivier Municipality(737/11) [2012] ZASCA 153
    Cites

    Referred to in the Joseph case for the principle that later provisions of a general enactment prevail over inconsistent earlier ones.

  • Johannes Diederik Le Roux N O (Curator Ad Litem for Ntomzodwa Patricia Olifant and Johannes Barry) v The Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality(239/2024) [2025] ZASCA 122 (2 September 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that reasonableness in the context of wrongfulness concerns the reasonableness of imposing liability on the defendant, not the…

  • Johncom Media Investments Limited v M and Others(CCT 08/08) [2009] ZACC 5
    Applies

    Applied for the two-stage test to determine whether a provision infringes a constitutional right: first, whether the provision limits a right and second,…

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

    Cited for the principle that implied repeal should not readily be inferred; the Legislature does not intend to alter existing law more than necessary.

  • KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Education, KwaZulu-Natal and Others[2013] ZACC 10
    Considers

    Cited in a footnote by Froneman J as an example of decisions in the Supreme Court of Appeal that do not appear to be altogether harmonious on the interplay…

  • L F Bezuidenhout NO v EskomCase No: 379/2001, [2002] Supreme Court of Appeal
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the same conduct may be lawful towards one person but unlawful towards another.

  • Madelein Brisley v Antoinette DrotskySaak no: 432/2000
    Cites

    Cited for reluctance to depart from precedent.

  • Malachi v Cape Dance Academy International (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 05/10) [2010] ZACC 13
    Applies

    Court applies Coetzee to find the impugned provisions overbroad because they fail to require exhaustion of less invasive alternatives, and to set out the test…

  • 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 principle that the notion of an open and democratic society furnishes normative ideals for testing impugned norms and conduct, and for the test…

  • Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Eskom Holdings Limited and Others; Shadrack Shivumba Homu Mkhonto and Others v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Limited[2017] ZACC 35
    Cites

    The Court cited Matiso regarding the common law distinction between orders ad solvendam pecuniam (to pay money) and orders ad factum praestandum (to perform a…

  • mCubed International (Pty) Ltd and mCubed Life Limited v Leon John Singer NO and Others(118/08) [2009] ZASCA 6 (11 March 2009)
    Cites

    Cited for the test that whether a representation can be inferred from conduct depends on whether that representation is the most likely inference to be drawn…

  • Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Gauteng and Another v Sibongile Vilakazi and Others(783/2023) [2024] ZASCA 126 (17 September 2024)
    Applies

    Applied the multi-factor approach to appealability, including finality, convenience, delay, expedience, prejudice, and justice.

  • Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Welfare v Kate(580/04) [2006] ZASCA 46
    Cites

    This case is cited as an example to show that government may be cited instead of a political head in a claim against the state.

  • Minister of Basic Education v Basic Education for All(20793/2014) [2015] ZASCA 198 (2 December 2015)
    Cites

    Court cites Grootboom for the proposition that all rights in the Bill of Rights are inter-related and mutually supporting.

  • Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Estate Late Robert James Stransham-Ford[2016] ZASCA 197 (6 December 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for principle that claim for pain and suffering is not transmitted to estate unless litis contestatio reached, and that defamation claim dies with…

  • Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co Ltd v The Owners and Underwriters of the MV 'Smart' and Another(573/2023) [2024] ZASCA 129 (1 October 2024)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that there is no checklist for appealability, and several considerations must be weighed, including finality, definitiveness,…

  • Mkhize: In re Mbuyazi v The Premier of the Province of Kwazulu-Natal and Mbuyazi v Mbonambi Community Development Trust(822/2013) [2014] ZASCA 204 (28 November 2014)
    Follows

    Followed for the principle that a claim terminates upon death where it cannot be ceded even after litis contestatio.

  • M. Magigaba Incorporated Attorneys and Andile Justice Magigaba v Legal Aid South Africa and OthersCase numbers: LCC147/2008, LCC191/2008, LCC05/2014 (judgment delivered 4 March 2024)
    Cites

    The court relies on this case as an example of an application for payment of legal fees and disbursements under section 29(4) that was decided on application…

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

    Applied for the settled principle that a claim for general damages is not transmissible unless litis contestatio has been reached.

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

    Cited to confirm that Moutse was described as a district in court judgments.

  • MultiChoice Support Services (Pty) Ltd v Calvin Electronics t/a Batavia Trading and Another(296/2020) [2021] ZASCA 143
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that if a first order is wrong in law, a second order arising from and given in consequence of the first is legally untenable and has…

  • Murray NO and Others v Ntombela and Others[2024] ZASCA 24 (14 March 2024)
    Cites

    The Court cited Van Zyl for the principle that review proceedings must ordinarily be brought under rule 53 unless they fall within the purview of PAJA.

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

    Cited for the concept that litis contestatio freezes the plaintiff's rights as at close of pleadings.

  • National Student Financial Aid Scheme v Samantha Lettie Moloi and Others[2024] ZASCA 66 (03 May 2024)
    Applies

    The case is applied to explain that reasonableness must be understood within the context of the Bill of Rights, and that the Court found a housing programme…

  • NSS obo AS v MEC for Health, Eastern Cape Province(Case no 017/22) [2023] ZASCA 41 (31 March 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the question is whether it is in the interests of justice that an order be corrected.

  • Off-Beat Holiday Club and Another v Sanbonani Holiday Spa Shareblock Limited and Others[2017] ZACC 15
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished in Barnett to show the difference between a single act of deprivation in the past and ongoing wrongful conduct depriving possession.

  • Olitzki Property Holdings v State Tender Board and Premier of the Province of GautengCASE NO: 698/98
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the imposition of delictual liability requires applying a general criterion of reasonableness based on morality, policy, and the…

  • Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another(CCT 113/11) [2012] ZACC 22
    Applies

    The Court applies the test for severability from Coetzee to determine whether section 16(2)(a) can be severed.

  • Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another[2021] ZACC 22
    Cites

    Cited for the test of severability: if the good is not dependent on the bad and can be separated from it, one gives effect to the good that remains after the…

  • Rebecca Lawrence v The State; Rodney Gordon Negal v The State; Magdalena Petronella Solberg v The State1997 (4) SA 1176 (CC); 1997 (10) BCLR 1348 (CC); CCT 38/96, CCT 39/96, CCT 40/96
    Cites

    Cited for the extensive discussion by Sachs J of the interpretation of 'necessary' in international human rights instruments and the proportionality principle.

  • Road Accident Fund v Vusumzi Mdeyide (Minister for Transport Intervening)(CCT 10/10) [2010] ZACC 18
    Cites

    This case is cited regarding the two-stage limitation analysis approach.

  • S M Goldstein & Co (Pty) Limited v Cathkin Park Hotel (Pty) Ltd and AnotherCase No. 513/98 (SCA)
    Applies

    The court applies the test for wrongfulness based on reasonableness, morality, policy and legal convictions of the community as set out at pages 367-369.

  • 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 two-stage enquiry adopted when determining whether a statutory provision limits a constitutional right and whether the limitation is…

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

    Applied for the two-part test for severability: whether it is possible to sever the invalid provisions and, if so, whether what remains gives effect to the…

  • Taljaard and Another v The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and Others(161/2025) ZASCA 29 (17 March 2026)
    Applies

    Applied for the modern approach to appealability, which requires weighing multiple considerations including finality, definitiveness, disposal of relief,…

  • Telimatrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SACase No 459/04 (SCA) (Judgment delivered 9 September 2005)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that foreseeability of damage may be a factor in establishing whether or not a particular act was wrongful.

  • The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v The Southern Africa Litigation Centre(867/15) [2016] ZASCA 17 (15 March 2016)
    Applies

    The court applies the principle that repeal by implication is not to be lightly inferred.

Explore More Cases

More Public International Law cases

  • Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Compensation Owed by the Republic of Nicaragua to the Republic of Costa RicaGeneral List No. 150, ICJ Judgment of 2 February 2018
  • Minister of Foreign Affairs v Michael Jenrich, Standard Chartered Bank Zimbabwe, and Sheriff of ZimbabweSC 73/18; Civil Appeal No. SC 93/16
  • Minister of Foreign Affairs v Michael Jenrich; Standard Chartered Bank Zimbabwe; Sheriff of ZimbabweJudgment No. SC 76/18, Civil Appeal No. SC 93/16
  • The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v The Southern Africa Litigation Centre(867/15) [2016] ZASCA 17 (15 March 2016)

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

Practice This Case

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

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