Merafong City Local Municipality v AngloGold Ashanti Limited [2016] ZACC 35 (24 October 2016)

Reported
Merafong City Local Municipality v AngloGold Ashanti Limited [2016] ZACC 35 (24 October 2016)

Loading PDF...

This document is 466.3 KB. Do you want to load it?

Error loading PDF
Try reloading the page or downloading the PDF.
Error:
▲ To the top

Cited documents 36

Judgment
31
Reported
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Repealed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
open tender followed – action brought to enforce impugned contract – collateral challenge – whether court entitled to declare contract invalid and unlawful despite organ of state not having launched counter-application to review and set aside that contract.

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