This document is 227.2 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 20
Judgment
14
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
|
Reported
|
Act
6
Citizenship and Immigration
·
Education
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Human Rights
·
International Law
·
Labour and Employment
·
Public administration
|
Finance and Money
|
Dispute Resolution and Mediation
·
Human Rights
|
Repealed
|
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Finance and Money
·
Labour and Employment
·
Public administration
|
Dispute Resolution and Mediation
|
Documents citing this one 8
Judgment
8
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Suspension of operation of order pending an appeal – section 18(1) of Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 – leave to execute on order in terms of s 18(3) of Act – requirements – urgent appeal in terms of s 18(4) of Act – suspension of order granting leave to execute in terms of s 18(4)(iv) of Act – whether court empowered to order that suspension would not operate – such an order a nullity. |
Reported
|
Constitutional and administrative law – just and equitable order under s 172(1)(b) of the Constitution – factors to be taken into account – default judgment valid and binding – s 165(5) of the Constitution – enforceability of court orders – order sought having effect of prohibiting execution of the default judgment – order not just and equitable – application for leave to appeal dismissed. |
Civil Procedure – on appeal, the appellants were not entitled to an order they did not seek in the court of first instance – attachment of a bank account held by an organ of State – order of this Court on appeal would be of no practical effect – issues raised were moot – costs order of the court a quo reversed on account of serious injustice suffered by the first respondent
|