Notyawa v Makana Municipality and Others [2019] ZACC 43 (21 November 2019)

Public procurement – contract awarded for the provision of services to
organ of state – no open tender process followed, as required – agreement unlawful for want of compliance with legal prescripts – further contracts for provision of services also unlawful – effect of settlement agreement – court cannot validly make settlement
agreement an order if settlement agreement unlawful.

Procurement by municipality of debt management services – quintessentially a constitutional issue – factors to be applied in considering delay in self-review by public authority – contract invalid for want of compliance with applicable regulations and constitutional imperatives – s 172(1)(b) applied – just and equitable remedy to avoid denying accrued rights – part of contract not set aside – concern about frequency of late self-review applications where contract periods have run their course and no sanctions for aberrant officials.

Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 — Value Added tax Act 89 of 1991 — Constitutionality of section 75(15)(a)(i)(bb) of the Customs Act — Constitutionality of section 74(3)(a) of the VAT Act

Sections delegate plenary legislative power to the Minister — Breach of doctrine of separation of powers — Rationality — Section 77 of the Constitution

Prenuptial agreement — providing for maintenance — pleaded as unspecified donation — Divorce Act 70 of 1979 — section 7 — not triggered
Prenuptial agreement — providing for maintenance — valid and enforceable vis-à-vis the antenuptial contract — not change anything stante matrimonio

Voluntary disclosure – s 227 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA) – s 39(7) of the Value Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 (VAT Act) – whether s 227 of the TAA read with s 39(7) of the VAT Act precludes remission of value added tax after conclusion and implementation of a voluntary disclosure agreement concluded pursuant to s 227 of the TAA.

[municipal property rates] — [principle of legality] — [section 172(1)(b)] — [just and equitable relief] — [review proceedings]

Section 54(A)(8) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 – whether review of appointment of municipal managers falls within exclusive jurisdiction of Labour Court - whether review application launched by respondent brought in terms of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 or principle of legality – whether delay in launching review unreasonable – whether setting aside of impugned decision was just and equitable.