-Summaries for over 60 cases
-Commentary on each case from the textbook
-Things prof said that are not in the textbook
-Are colour-coded and easy to follow
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
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller LawGuru. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R100,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
