This document is 466.3 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 36
Judgment
31
Reported
|
Affordable Medicines Trust and Others v Minister of Health and Another [2005] ZACC 3 (11 March 2005)
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
Administrative action – validity of administrative decision not the subject of counter-application or separate review application – beneficiary of decision prejudiced – proper process must be followed to set the decision aside – validity of decision not before the Court. Administrative action – status of administrative decision improperly taken – decision remains effectual until properly set aside and cannot be ignored – application of Oudekraal judgment. |
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Act
5
Citizenship and Immigration
·
Education
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Human Rights
·
International Law
·
Labour and Employment
·
Public administration
|
Dispute Resolution and Mediation
·
Human Rights
|
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
|
Repealed
|
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
|
Documents citing this one 59
Judgment
59
Reported
Public Protector Act 23 of 1994 — personal costs — punitive costs — representative litigant — personal indemnity exceeded — accountability
|
Reported
Legality review — unreasonable delay — overlooking delay — section 172 of the Constitution — Gijima
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Contract awarded for the provision of services to organ of state – no |
Constitutional and administrative law – procurement process – legality review – self-review by an organ of state – proper approach to establish whether irregularities occurred as a matter of fact – evaluation whether irregularities constitute tenable grounds of review – determination of whether there had been deviation from procurement prescripts and, if established, the materiality of such deviation from legal requirements of procurement process – determination of whether the manifest purpose sought to be served by the procurement process had been substantially accomplished. Delay in instituting a legality review – whether delay unreasonable and if so, whether delay should nevertheless be condoned – legality self-review not subject to strictures of s 7(1) of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 – nevertheless legality self-review required to be instituted without unreasonable delay – whether delay is unreasonable is a question of fact – whether unreasonable delay should be condoned entails a value judgment dictated by constitutional value
|
Reported
|
Reported
|