Distribution of the document is illegal
Admin Law Cases
Key
Red = case name
Yellow = section
Blue = subtopic
Term 1 Cases
1. Fedsure Life Assurance v Greater Transitional Metropolitan Council 1999 (especially paras 21-42;
53-59 )
2. President of the RSA v SARFU 2000 (paras 132-148.)
3. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA v President of the RSA 2000 (especially paras 33-50
and 85-86 and 89-90.)
4. R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings1995 (at 524e-g)
5. Judicial Service Commission v Premier Western Cape 2011 (headnote)
6. Minister of Public Works v Kyalami Ridge Environmental Association 2001 (paras 33–52)
7. Minister of Education v Harris 2001 (paras 16-18)
8. Executive Council Western Cape Legislature v President of the Republic of South Africa 1995 (paras
62-63)
9. Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs 2000 (para 52-56)
10. Shidiack v Union Government 1912
11. Minister of Trade & Industry v Nieuwoudt 1985 (para 11-13)
12. Hofmeyr v Minister of Justice 1992
13. Minister of Environmental Affairs & Tourism v Scenematic Fourteen Private Ltd 2005 (paras 19–20)
14. MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Kirland Investments 2014 (paras 64-68; paras 87-96)
15. Long Beach Home Owners Association v Department of Agriculture 2018 (paras 5-6; 7.3; 15-16)
16. Marshall and Others v Commission for the South Africa Revenue Service 2019 (paras 6-10.)
17. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC 1984
18. African Christian Democratic Party v Electoral Commission 2006 (para 25)
19. Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social
Security Agency and Others 2014 (para 30)
20. Walele v City of Cape Town 2008 (para 60)
21. Pepcor Retirement Fund v Financial Services Board 2003 (paras 30-52)
22. Dumani v Nair 2013 (para 32)
23. Johannesburg Stock Exchange v Witwatersrand Nigel Ltd 1988 (at 152E-I)
24. SARFU (para 148 and 224)
25. University of Cape Town v Ministers of Education and Culture 1988 (headnote)
26. Van Eck NO and Van Rensburg NO v Etna Stores 1947 (headnote)
27. Hart v Van Niekerk NO 1991 (headnote)
28. Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director-General Environmental Management 2007
(paras 84 – 88)
29. Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Coega Development Corporation 2010 (para 43)
30. Scalabrini Centre, Cape Town and Others v Minister of Home Affairs 2018 (para 62)
31. MEC for Environmental Affairs & Dev Planning v Clairison’s CC 2013 (paras 20-22)
Kaya Borkowski
, Distribution of the document is illegal
32. Collector of Customs v Cape Central Railways Ltd 1889 (headnote)
33. Johannesburg Town Council v Norman Anstey & Co 1928 (Headnote)
34. Kemp NO v Van Wyk 2005 (para 1)
35. Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2004 (para 57)
36. Esau v Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs 2021 (para 106.)
Term 1 Topics
Lawfulness
- Authority
- Jurisdiction
- Abuse of discretion and other forms of unlawfulness
Please note ⭐
- Due to the nature of admin law as a subject, the format of the summaries is not all the same.
Sometimes I do not mention the issue or facts (as I do for other courses) because a case/ issue might
not be centered around admin law itself but it rather touches on an element of it. Further, sometimes
the facts of a case are unimportant so I just put in the relevant principle :)
Authority
Fedsure Life Assurance v Greater Transitional Metropolitan Council
1999
General – all exercises of public power must be authorised
(especially paras 21-42; 53-59 )
Facts
- The appellants, ten ratepayers in the Eastern Metropolitan Substructure (EMS), objected to a
substantial increase in their property rates
- They challenged the lawfulness of certain resolutions (adopted by the Greater Johannesburg
Transitional Metropolitan Council (TMC) and EMS which had given rise to this increase.
- The effect of this policy was that some ratepayers faced an increase in their existing property rates
whilst others enjoyed a decrease.
(the facts are complicated and technical tax-wise so I stuck to the gist of what we covered in
class when summarizing :) )
- HC: Goldstein J found the resolutions to be lawful and did not set the resolutions aside
- SCA: found it was not able to entertain the appeal since the attacks raised constitutional issues.
Issue
- Whether a town council was exercising administrative action when passing the resolutions?
Kaya Borkowski
Admin Law Cases
Key
Red = case name
Yellow = section
Blue = subtopic
Term 1 Cases
1. Fedsure Life Assurance v Greater Transitional Metropolitan Council 1999 (especially paras 21-42;
53-59 )
2. President of the RSA v SARFU 2000 (paras 132-148.)
3. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA v President of the RSA 2000 (especially paras 33-50
and 85-86 and 89-90.)
4. R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings1995 (at 524e-g)
5. Judicial Service Commission v Premier Western Cape 2011 (headnote)
6. Minister of Public Works v Kyalami Ridge Environmental Association 2001 (paras 33–52)
7. Minister of Education v Harris 2001 (paras 16-18)
8. Executive Council Western Cape Legislature v President of the Republic of South Africa 1995 (paras
62-63)
9. Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs 2000 (para 52-56)
10. Shidiack v Union Government 1912
11. Minister of Trade & Industry v Nieuwoudt 1985 (para 11-13)
12. Hofmeyr v Minister of Justice 1992
13. Minister of Environmental Affairs & Tourism v Scenematic Fourteen Private Ltd 2005 (paras 19–20)
14. MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Kirland Investments 2014 (paras 64-68; paras 87-96)
15. Long Beach Home Owners Association v Department of Agriculture 2018 (paras 5-6; 7.3; 15-16)
16. Marshall and Others v Commission for the South Africa Revenue Service 2019 (paras 6-10.)
17. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC 1984
18. African Christian Democratic Party v Electoral Commission 2006 (para 25)
19. Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social
Security Agency and Others 2014 (para 30)
20. Walele v City of Cape Town 2008 (para 60)
21. Pepcor Retirement Fund v Financial Services Board 2003 (paras 30-52)
22. Dumani v Nair 2013 (para 32)
23. Johannesburg Stock Exchange v Witwatersrand Nigel Ltd 1988 (at 152E-I)
24. SARFU (para 148 and 224)
25. University of Cape Town v Ministers of Education and Culture 1988 (headnote)
26. Van Eck NO and Van Rensburg NO v Etna Stores 1947 (headnote)
27. Hart v Van Niekerk NO 1991 (headnote)
28. Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director-General Environmental Management 2007
(paras 84 – 88)
29. Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Coega Development Corporation 2010 (para 43)
30. Scalabrini Centre, Cape Town and Others v Minister of Home Affairs 2018 (para 62)
31. MEC for Environmental Affairs & Dev Planning v Clairison’s CC 2013 (paras 20-22)
Kaya Borkowski
, Distribution of the document is illegal
32. Collector of Customs v Cape Central Railways Ltd 1889 (headnote)
33. Johannesburg Town Council v Norman Anstey & Co 1928 (Headnote)
34. Kemp NO v Van Wyk 2005 (para 1)
35. Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2004 (para 57)
36. Esau v Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs 2021 (para 106.)
Term 1 Topics
Lawfulness
- Authority
- Jurisdiction
- Abuse of discretion and other forms of unlawfulness
Please note ⭐
- Due to the nature of admin law as a subject, the format of the summaries is not all the same.
Sometimes I do not mention the issue or facts (as I do for other courses) because a case/ issue might
not be centered around admin law itself but it rather touches on an element of it. Further, sometimes
the facts of a case are unimportant so I just put in the relevant principle :)
Authority
Fedsure Life Assurance v Greater Transitional Metropolitan Council
1999
General – all exercises of public power must be authorised
(especially paras 21-42; 53-59 )
Facts
- The appellants, ten ratepayers in the Eastern Metropolitan Substructure (EMS), objected to a
substantial increase in their property rates
- They challenged the lawfulness of certain resolutions (adopted by the Greater Johannesburg
Transitional Metropolitan Council (TMC) and EMS which had given rise to this increase.
- The effect of this policy was that some ratepayers faced an increase in their existing property rates
whilst others enjoyed a decrease.
(the facts are complicated and technical tax-wise so I stuck to the gist of what we covered in
class when summarizing :) )
- HC: Goldstein J found the resolutions to be lawful and did not set the resolutions aside
- SCA: found it was not able to entertain the appeal since the attacks raised constitutional issues.
Issue
- Whether a town council was exercising administrative action when passing the resolutions?
Kaya Borkowski
