This document is 537.5 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 10
Judgment
7
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Reported
|
Act
3
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
|
Documents citing this one 6
Judgment
6
National Credit Act, 34 of 2005 – interpretation – sections 40(1), 40(3), 76(3), 100(1)(c),100(1)(d)(ii) and 151 – obligation to register as credit provider – permissibility of advertising the availability of credit and concluding credit agreements prior to registration – permissible interest charges – power of National Credit Tribunal in terms of the Act – to declare non-compliant credit agreements unlawful and void – to order refunds to consumers – to determine and impose administrative fines – nature of appeal from the tribunal to the high court in terms of s 148(2)(b) of the Act |
Review of administrative decisions – whether the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) makes out a case for the impugned administrative decisions to be reviewed and set aside. Held: The impugned decisions are irregular and unlawful. Just and equitable remedy – the SIU sought just and equitable remedy in terms of s172(1)(b) of the Constitution. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant such a remedy in light of the Constitutional Court decision in Ledla. The Tribunal not having been furnished with the information it requires to determine the appropriate remedial relief, directives are issued for the further conduct of the matter. |
Administrative law – review of decisions to award tenders and contracts concluded pursuant thereto – whether the tenders and contracts should be declared invalid and set aside – just and equitable relief – whether the tenderers should be divested profits earned from invalid tenders. |
Administrative Law – Legality review – Procurement processes. Administrative law – legality review in terms of s 8 (2) of the Special Investigating Unit and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996 – whether functionaries of the second respondent failed to comply with the applicable procurement prescripts when they awarded contracts to the first respondent – just and equitable relief. |