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

Xolisile Zondi v Member of the Executive Council for Traditional and Local Government Affairs and Others

Citation(CCT 73/03) [2004] ZACC 19
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
Property Law
Equality Law

Facts of the Case

Mrs Xolisile Zondi was the widow of a farm labourer who had resided on the farm Thornview for over 25 years. Her only asset was livestock (28 cattle and 18 goats) inherited from her deceased husband, valued at R44,600. She depended on the livestock for her livelihood, selling calves for expenses and using cattle for traditional ceremonies. The farm owner, Mr Cook, issued a letter of demand on 14 February 2003 requiring her to remove her livestock by 14 March 2003, threatening impoundment under the Pound Ordinance (KwaZulu-Natal) 1947. Mrs Zondi was illiterate and landless. She brought urgent proceedings in the Pietermaritzburg High Court challenging the constitutionality of sections 8, 10(2), 12, 16(1), 29(1), 33, 34, 37, and 41(4) of the Ordinance. The High Court granted an interdict preventing impoundment and declared the impugned provisions unconstitutional, referring the matter to the Constitutional Court for confirmation under section 172(2)(a) of the Constitution.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the impounding scheme under the Pound Ordinance violated the right of access to courts (section 34 of the Constitution)
  • Whether section 29(1) of the Ordinance discriminated unfairly on the basis of race and landlessness (section 9(3) of the Constitution)
  • Whether the impugned provisions violated the right to just administrative action (section 33 of the Constitution and PAJA)
  • Whether the Constitutional Court should grant direct access to enable the applicant to challenge the entire Ordinance or further provisions
  • Whether the High Court's order of invalidity was subject to confirmation by the Constitutional Court
  • The appropriate remedy for provisions found to be unconstitutional

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was upheld in part and dismissed in part. Sections 16(1), 29(1), 33, 34, and 37 of the Ordinance were declared inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. The order of invalidity was suspended for 12 months (except section 29(1) which was struck down immediately) to enable the KwaZulu-Natal legislature to correct the inconsistency. Pending new legislation: (1) notice must be given to stockowners who are known or can with reasonable diligence be ascertained; (2) all sales must be authorized by a magistrate's court; (3) the poundkeeper must lodge a statement with the court on notice to the stockowner; (4) if amounts are disputed, the magistrate must summarily enquire into the matter. Sections 8, 10(2), 12, 37, and 41(4) were held constitutional when construed as requiring notice where stockowners are known or can with reasonable diligence be ascertained. Mrs Zondi was awarded costs of the appeal. The MEC's application to lead further evidence was refused.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Section 34's guarantee of access to courts extends beyond dispute resolution to include protection against self-help in the attachment and sale of property, encompassing the circumstances in which property may be seized and sold and the control exercised over sales in execution (following Lesapo); (2) A statutory scheme that permits a party to be judge in their own cause, to bypass courts entirely, and to determine conditions of execution without judicial supervision violates section 34; (3) The more potentially divisive a social conflict, the more important it is that disputes be resolved by courts or independent tribunals; (4) Legislation that is manifestly racist in its purpose (as evidenced by its historical context and terms) violates section 9(3), even if challenged only on the basis of its effect; (5) Statutory provisions that do not explicitly require notice or reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of affected persons can and should be construed consistently with the Constitution to require such notice where the person is known or can with reasonable diligence be ascertained (section 39(2)); (6) Administrative action includes the exercise of public powers and performance of public duties derived from statute by any functionary, regardless of which arm of government they belong to; the test focuses on the nature of the function, not the identity of the actor; (7) PAJA gives effect to section 33 and now ordinarily grounds causes of action for judicial review of administrative action; statutes authorizing administrative action must be read together with PAJA unless inconsistent; (8) Procedural fairness generally requires that reasonable steps be taken to bring decision-making to the attention of persons to be affected; what fairness demands depends on the circumstances of each case; (9) Reading-in or severance is inappropriate where it would require the court to engage in extensive law-making, make policy decisions, or choose between a range of options that are primarily for the legislature to determine; (10) Where provisions form an integral part of an unconstitutional scheme and their removal would make the scheme unworkable, striking down with suspended invalidity is the appropriate remedy.

Obiter Dicta

Ngcobo J made several important observations obiter: (1) The Court described the historical context of land dispossession, forced removals, and the denial of land ownership to black South Africans under apartheid, emphasizing that livestock impounding must be understood in this "historically tragic setting" of struggle for land between "haves and have-nots"; (2) The Court noted that in a context of general illiteracy and lack of access to resources, public notice through official gazettes or newspapers may not be legally sufficient to provide notice to historically disadvantaged groups; (3) The Court observed that the applicant alleged impounding was used as "a favoured means of harassing or intimidating" poor black people in rural areas, but could not make findings on this as the respondent did not oppose; (4) The Court noted that records from Weenen Pound (1990-1992) showed that 332 African stockowners had cattle impounded compared to only 7 white farmers, with over R240,000 paid for release and 78 stockowners losing livestock because they could not afford to pay - demonstrating the racially disparate impact; (5) The Court observed that while immediate action against trespassing animals may be justified, once animals are impounded there is no reason to bypass judicial process; (6) The Court stated that where courts are concerned with legislation rooted in apartheid, "it is necessary to cleanse the statute books of such statutes" as they are inconsistent with the Constitution; (7) The Court noted the Animal Identification Act 6 of 2002 (effective November 2003) requires identification marks on animals and notice to owners where they can be established from such marks; (8) The Court emphasized that parties in constitutional matters must place all relevant information before the court of first instance and cannot hope to supplement their case on appeal; (9) The Court noted it was "unfortunate" that the MEC took the stance that it was unnecessary to reach the constitutionality of the Ordinance, particularly after being called upon by the High Court to make representations.

Legal Significance

This judgment is highly significant in South African constitutional law for several reasons: (1) It affirmed that section 34's right of access to courts is a manifestation of the rule of law and prohibits self-help remedies, extending to execution processes, not just dispute resolution; (2) It demonstrated the Court's willingness to strike down apartheid-era legislation that was manifestly racist in purpose and effect; (3) It situated constitutional adjudication in South Africa's history of land dispossession, forced removals, and racial segregation, recognizing how seemingly neutral laws operated within structures of systemic inequality; (4) It clarified the relationship between section 33 (right to administrative justice) and PAJA, establishing that constitutional challenges must be evaluated under section 33, but PAJA informs how statutes should be read; (5) It emphasized the principle of constitutional interpretation that statutes should where possible be construed consistently with the Constitution (section 39(2)); (6) It refined the approach to remedies, explaining when reading-in or severance is inappropriate and the court should strike down provisions while suspending invalidity to allow legislative correction; (7) It addressed the circumstances in which direct access to the Constitutional Court will be granted, emphasizing the undesirability of bypassing lower courts with constitutional jurisdiction; (8) It affirmed that parties must place all relevant evidence before the trial court and will not ordinarily be permitted to supplement their case on appeal. The judgment is an important example of transformative constitutionalism addressing the ongoing legacy of apartheid.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 30 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Brink v Kitshoff NOCCT 15/95
    Cites

    Cited for the discretion to grant direct access when it is in the interests of justice.

  • Chief Direko Lesapo v North West Agricultural BankCCT 23/99
    Applies

    Applied to interpret section 34 and the rule against self-help; right of access to courts is foundational to the stability of an orderly society.

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

    Cited for the undesirability of this Court sitting as court of first and last instance.

  • City of Cape Town v Commando and Others(1303/2021) [2023] ZASCA 7 (6 February 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for direct access principles and the need for compelling reasons to bypass lower courts with constitutional jurisdiction.

  • Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa; Matiso v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison

Cited By 58 Cases

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

    Cited for the proposition that what the opportunity to make representations requires depends on the context.

  • Assmang (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others(311/2024) [2025] ZASCA 121 (29 August 2025)
    Applies

    Applied to emphasise that a constitutional challenge requires a complete factual and legal foundation in the pleadings.

  • Azeem Hassan Walele v The City of Cape Town(CCT 64/07) [2008] ZACC 11
    Applies

    Court applied principle allowing evidence to be placed before it where there are compelling reasons; also applied principle that statutes authorising…

  • Azeem Hassan Walele v The City of Cape Town and Others
    Applies

    Court applied Zondi in holding that this Court permits evidence to be placed before it where there are compelling reasons to do so, and that PAJA gives effect…

Practice This Case

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

CCT 19/94 and CCT 22/94; 1995 (4) SA 631 (CC); 1995 (10) BCLR 1382 (CC)
Cites

Cited for the principles guiding whether words should be severed from a provision or read into one.

  • Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others2000 (3) SA 936 (CC); 2000 (8) BCLR 837 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts should be slow to make choices that are primarily for the legislature where curing a defect requires policy decisions.

  • DVB Behuising (Pty) Limited v North West Provincial Government and Another (Western Cape Provincial Government and Others Intervening)Case CCT 22/99, decided 2 March 2000
    Cites

    Cited on the historical context of land dispossession and forced removals; also cited for the principle that purpose and effect of legislation are relevant in…

  • In re KwaZulu-Natal Amakhosi and Iziphakanyiswa Amendment Bill of 1995 and In re Payment of Salaries, Allowances and other Privileges to the Ingonyama Bill of 1995CCT 1/96 and CCT 6/96 (Judgment delivered 5 July 1996)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that purpose and effect are relevant to determining constitutionality of a statute.

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

    Cited for the principle that the cause of action for judicial review of administrative action arises from PAJA, not common law.

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

    Cited for the principle that legislation must be construed consistently with the Constitution.

  • President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Dental Association and Another[2015] ZACC 2
    Applies

    Applied to determine whether a particular act constitutes administrative action by focusing on the nature of the power exercised, not the identity of the actor.

  • Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa and AnotherCCT 48/02 (Constitutional Court, decided 17 March 2003)
    Cites

    Cited on direct access principles and compelling reasons required to sit as court of first and last instance.

  • Stephanus Johannes Martinus de Beer N.O. v The North Central Local Council and the South Central Local CouncilCCT 59/00 (2001) [reported at 2002 (1) SA 429 (CC); 2001 (11) BCLR 1109 (CC)]
    Cites

    Cited for the interpretive principle that legislation must be construed consistently with the Constitution.

  • Sunnyboy Edward Saane v Susan R. Hulme NO (Acting-Magistrate, Johannesburg Magistrates Court) and Minister of JusticeCCT 33/00
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that legislation must be construed consistently with the Constitution.

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

    Cited for the principle that the provision resulting from reading-in or severance should interfere with laws adopted by the legislature as little as possible.

  • The Western Cape Minister of Education and Others v The Governing Body of Mikro Primary School and AnotherCase No 140/05
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that this Court may have greater flexibility in allowing additional evidence on appeal in constitutional matters, but power should only…

  • Transvaal Agricultural Union v Minister of Land Affairs and the Commission on Restitution of Land RightsCase CCT 21/96 (Constitutional Court, decided 18 November 1996)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the Constitutional Court should ordinarily not sit as court of first and last instance.

  • William Frederick Gerber and Others v Member of the Executive Council of the Gauteng Provincial Government, Development Planning & Local Government and AnotherCase no: 303/2001
    Cites

    Cited for the principles that whether it is in the interests of justice to grant direct access depends on the facts of each case.

  • Xolisile Zondi v Member of the Executive Council for Traditional and Local Government Affairs and OthersCase CCT 73/03 (Decided on 29 November 2005)
    Appeal From

    This is the High Court judgment that is now on appeal to the Constitutional Court; appeal partially upheld and partially dismissed.

  • Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei and Others1995 (4) SA 615 (CC); 1995 (10) BCLR 1424 (CC); CCT/24/94
    Cites

    Cited for the basis of the rule requiring courts to decide cases without reaching constitutional issues where possible, and the exception when an order of a…

  • Barkhuizen v Napier
    (CCT 72/05) [2007] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that section 34 is an express constitutional recognition of the importance of the fair resolution of social conflict by impartial and…

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

    Court followed the principle that PAJA governs the exercise of administrative action in general and all decision-makers entrusted with authority to make…

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

    Applied at para 101 for the principle that PAJA governs administrative action and that statutes must be read together with PAJA unless inconsistent.

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

    Applied for the principle that procedural fairness depends on the circumstances of each case and the requirement that persons affected by a decision be…

  • Chirwa v Transnet Limited and Others(CCT 78/06) [2007] ZACC 23
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the focus of the enquiry whether conduct constitutes administrative action is not on the functionary but on the nature of the…

  • Cross-Border Road Transport Agency v Central African Road Services (Pty) Limited and Another[2015] ZACC 12
    Applies

    Court applies this case for the principle that a court has the power to extend a suspension period before expiry if it is just and equitable, but cannot vary…

  • Drift Supersand (Pty) Limited v Mogale City Local Municipality(1185/2016) [2017] ZASCA 118 (22 September 2017)
    Applies

    Applied in relation to the principle that PAJA governs administrative action and its provisions are to be read together with enabling legislation.

  • Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Germiston Municipal Retirement Fund[2017] ZACC 1
    Cites

    Cited for factors to assess fairness when considering whether to allow new evidence.

  • Esorfranki Pipelines (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mopani District Municipality and Others(40/13) [2014] ZASCA 21 (28 March 2014)
    Cites

    Cited in support of principles on standing for persons seeking to vindicate the constitutional right to just administrative action under PAJA.

  • Ex Parte: Minister of Social Development and OthersCCT 14/06
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that this Court has the power to extend a suspension period under section 172(1)(b) if just and equitable, but only while the…

  • Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others[2019] ZACC 34
    Applies

    Applied to determine the factors to consider in determining whether it is in the interests of justice to grant direct access or direct appeal to the…

  • HBR (Hola Bon Renaissance) Foundation v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others[2011] ZACC 10
    Follows

    Cited for the repeated principle that it is undesirable for the Constitutional Court to sit as the court of first and final instance where other courts have…

  • HLB International (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v MWRK Accountants and Consultants (Pty) Ltd(113/2021) [2022] ZASCA 52 (12 April 2022)
    Applies

    Court applies the Constitutional Court's reasoning on the considerations that support exceptions to the general rule that orders are final and unalterable,…

  • 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 a party seeking to intervene must have a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter.

  • Islamic Unity Convention v Minister of Telecommunications and Others(CCT 33/07) [2007] ZACC 26
    Applies

    Court applies Zondi for the principle that section 34 is constitutional recognition of the importance of fair resolution of social conflict by impartial and…

  • JDJ Properties CC and Another v Umngeni Local Municipality and Another(873/11) [2012] ZASCA 186 (29 November 2012)
    Cites

    Cited for the concept of administrative action and its core meaning.

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

    Cited for the principle that procedural fairness is context-dependent and the overriding consideration is what fairness demands in the particular circumstances.

  • Lorraine Sophie Botha and Another v Henry Robins Rich N.O. and Others[2014] ZACC 11
    Cites

    Court cites this case to support the power under section 172(1) to make any order that is just and equitable.

  • Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Andrews and Another; Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Bopanang Construction CC(CCT 97/07) [2009] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited on fairness requirements and the rule of law, and the state's obligation to provide courts and tribunals for dispute resolution.

  • Mdodana v Premier of the Eastern Cape and Others(CCT 85/13) [2014] ZACC 7
    Applies

    This Court applied Zondi in determining that the impoundment provisions in the Ordinance similarly allowed sale of animals without judicial supervision in…

  • MEC: Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment v HTF Developers (Pty) Limited(CCT 32/07) [2007] ZACC 25
    Applies

    Court applies Zondi holding that all administrative decisions made in terms of any statute must be consistent with PAJA and that PAJA provisions will be read…

  • MEC for the Department of Public Works, Eastern Cape and Another v Ikamva Architects CC(544/2021) [2022] ZASCA 184 (20 December 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that public policy requires finality in litigation and that parties must be assured that court orders are final.

  • 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 principle that procedural fairness is contextual and the overriding consideration is what fairness demands in the circumstances of the particular…

  • Michael Hermann Armbruster and Another v The Minister of Finance and Others(CCT 59/06) [2007] ZACC 17
    Distinguishes

    Applicants relied on this case on section 34; Court distinguished it on the basis of different social and historical context and different subject matter.

  • Michael Weare and Another v Mr Joel Sibusisio Ndebele NO and Others(CCT 15/08) [2008] ZACC 20
    Considers

    The Court notes that the question whether an ordinance is a 'provincial Act' for purposes of sections 167(5) and 172(2)(a) arose in Zondi but was not decided.

  • Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Dingaan Hendrik Nyathi(CCT 53/09) [2009] ZACC 29
    Applies

    The Court applies the principle from this case that the Court retains power to reconsider and extend a period of suspension of a declaration of invalidity in…

  • Minister for Transport and Another v Mvumvu and Others(CCT 62/12) [2012] ZACC 20
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the Court retains the power during suspension to extend the period of suspension as part of its power to make a just and…

  • Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(CCT 186/16) [2016] ZACC 26
    Applies

    The Court applies the principle that this Court has the power and obligation under its just and equitable jurisdiction to vary the period of suspension and…

  • Minister of Communications v Ngewu[2013] ZACC 44
    Applies

    Court applies the authority of Zondi that this Court is at liberty to extend the period of suspension if it has not yet expired.

  • Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment & Others v Badenhorst N.O. & Others(1004/2023) [2025] ZASCA 68 (28 May 2025)
    Cites

    Cited to illustrate that what constitutes a 'fair' procedure in administrative action will depend on the nature of the administrative action and circumstances…

  • Minister of Health and Professor D McIntyre NO v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and OthersCCT 59/04; 2005 (2) SA 530 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for principles of procedural fairness and consideration of what fairness demands

  • Minister of Justice and Correctional Services v Ramuhovhi and Others[2019] ZACC 44
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that extensions must be granted if in the interests of justice and that the power to extend should be exercised sparingly.

  • Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Limited v SMI Trading CC(603/2011) [2012] ZASCA 138 (28 September 2012)
    Cites

    Cited alongside Joseph on procedural fairness and its importance to respect for dignity and improving quality of decision-making.

  • Moladora Trust v Magalone Mereki and OthersLCC70/2022; [2022] ZALCC (Judgment delivered 11 November 2022)
    Cites

    The Court cites this Constitutional Court decision on the interconnectedness between land dispossession and impoundment laws, and the historical deprivation of…

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

    Distinguished on the basis that applicants did not point to any constitutional provision with which the impugned boundary is inconsistent; states the principle…

  • Napier v BarkhuizenCase no: 569/04
    Cites

    The court cites Ngcobo J's statement that the access to courts provision is an express constitutional recognition of the importance of fair resolution of…

  • Ngaka Modiri Molema District Municipality v Chairperson, North West Provincial Executive Committee and Others[2014] ZACC 31
    Cites

    Cited as authority for relevant considerations in determining direct access applications under section 167(6)(a) of the Constitution.

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

    Cited (in the dissenting judgment) as part of a series of cases standing for the proposition that unlawful administrative action cannot be treated as…

  • Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Limited v Gründlingh and Others(CCT 31/05) [2006] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited for the requirements for the granting of direct access to the Constitutional Court, emphasising that it must be in the interests of justice.

  • President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Dental Association and Another[2015] ZACC 2
    Cites

    Cited to establish that direct access is granted only if it is in the interests of justice to do so.

  • Prophet v National Director of Public Prosecutions(CCT 56/05) [2006] ZACC 17
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that new constitutional challenges should not be raised for the first time in the Constitutional Court.

  • Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes(CCT 22/08) [2011] ZACC 8
    Applies

    Applied to establish that a court making a 'just and equitable' order has the power to vary that order when changed circumstances render it unjust or…

  • Rikhotso v Premier, Limpopo Province and Others[2021] ZACC 1
    Applies

    This Court applied the two-fold rationale underlying the functus officio doctrine, that once a Judge has fully exercised jurisdiction, authority over the…

  • Simon Prophet v The National Director of Public ProsecutionsCase CCT 56/05 (Constitutional Court, judgment delivered 29 September 2006)
    Cites

    The Court cites this case for established jurisprudence that constitutional challenges should not be raised for the first time on appeal.

  • ST v CT(1224/16) [2018] ZASCA 73 (30 May 2018)
    Cites

    Distinguished the approach to constitutional challenges versus public policy challenges to contractual terms.

  • The Affordable Medicines Trust and Others v The Minister of Health of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 27/04) [2005] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that legislation ought to be construed consistently with the Constitution where possible.

  • The Helen Suzman Foundation v Judicial Service Commission(145/2015) [2015] ZASCA 161 (2 November 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of equality of arms in footnote 6.

  • The IPA Foundation (NPC) v South African Pharmacy Council(1024/2023) [2025] ZASCA 148
    Applies

    Applied to support the principle that procedural fairness must be determined in light of the specific circumstances of each case.

  • The Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality(CCT 12/12) [2012] ZACC 9
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that a court that makes a section 172(1)(b) order that is just and equitable can also vary that order when justice and equity require.

  • The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Pygon Trading Close Corporation and Others(1175/2022) [2024] ZASCA 28 (22 March 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that once a Judge has fully exercised jurisdiction, authority over the subject matter ceases, and that the public interest requires…

  • Thobejane and Others v Premier of the Limpopo Province and Another(1108/2019) [2020] ZASCA 176 (18 December 2020)
    Cites

    The Court cites this case for the principle of functus officio and finality of litigation.

  • Tsediso Phillip Tsotetsi and Others v Willem Jonathan Raubenheimer N.O. and OthersLCC140/2020 (judgment delivered 18 January 2021)
    Cites

    Cited regarding the draconian history of impoundment intimately linked with the history of land dispossession.

  • Wycliffe Simiyu Koyabe and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Others(CCT 53/08) [2009] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited to support that what constitutes a fair procedure will depend on the nature of the administrative action and circumstances of the particular case.

  • Xolisile Zondi v Member of the Executive Council for Traditional and Local Government Affairs and OthersCase CCT 73/03 (Decided on 29 November 2005)
    Related To

    This is the original application in which judgment was handed down on 15 October 2004 declaring sections of the Pound Ordinance invalid and suspending the…

  • 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