<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/style.css" type="text/css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
    <channel>
        <title>Polity.org.za | Supreme Court of Appeal</title>
        <description><![CDATA[Polity.org.za offers a unique take on news, with a focus on political, legal, economic and social issues in South Africa and Africa, as well as international affairs. Polity strives to provide our readers reliable and objective reporting on important issues that drive our society.]]></description>
        <link>https://www.polity.org.za/page/supreme-court-of-appeal</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 23:56:48 +0200</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
        <item>
            <title>Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Another v AfriForum NPC (1049/2024) [2026] ZASCA 34</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/eskom-holdings-soc-limited-and-another-v-afriforum-npc-10492024-2026-zasca-34-2026-03-24</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  FLYNOTES: PAIA – Eskom – Coal and diesel contracts – AfriForum requested disclosure of Eskom’s active coal and diesel contracts – Eskom refused, High Court ordered disclosure and Eskom appealed – Court held refusal grounds not met: alleged harms speculative, commodity prices publicly available, tender processes transparent, contract terms routinely accessible – Confidentiality claims unsupported, statutory burden not discharged – Default position under section 11 applies – Access granted – Appeal dismissed with costs – Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000, ss 36(1)(b)–(c) and 42(3)(b)–(c).]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 14:21:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>717947</a_id>
        <updated>1774354970</updated>
        <published>1774354860</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001261527_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AfriForum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and Others (778/2024) [2026] ZASCA 28</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/afriforum-npc-v-ngwathe-local-municipality-and-others-7782024-2026-zasca-28-2026-03-13</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii Summary:    Costs – Award – General Principles – costs follow the result – if the government loses in litigation between the government and a private party seeking to assert a constitutional right it should pay the costs of the private party – Whether a full court misdirected itself in not applying these general principles in its award of costs.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 15:08:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>717270</a_id>
        <updated>1773407357</updated>
        <published>1773407280</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001259607_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary221022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another v Seale and Another (121/2024) ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/city-of-johannesburg-metropolitan-municipality-and-another-v-seale-and-another-1212024-2025-zasca-156-2025-10-24</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  Application of s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 –– existence of two orders issued by this Court on application for leave to appeal sufficient to establish jurisdiction to reconsider – no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal – prior orders of this Court set aside – application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2025 14:42:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>708544</a_id>
        <updated>1761309866</updated>
        <published>1761309720</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001234311_resized_legalgavellawlawyer1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>De Beers Consolidated Mines (Pty) Ltd v Regional Manager, Limpopo: The Department of Mineral ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/de-beers-consolidated-mines-pty-ltd-v-regional-manager-limpopo-the-department-of-mineral-resources-and-energy-and-others-4582024-2025-zasca-128-2025-09-12</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Read the full judgment on Saflii  [1]             The appellant, De Beers Consolidated Mines (Pty) Ltd (DBCM), under a mining license granted to it by the Department of Minerals and Energy (the Department) operated an open-cast diamond mine, namely the Oaks Mine in Limpopo (the Mine), from 1998 to 2008. In November 2009, DBCM submitted a closure application for the Mine, as was required of it by the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (the Act). Over a decade, correspondence was exchanged between the Department and DBCM concerning the closure plan for the Mine. In essence, the Department required the closure plan to include the obligation to backfill the pit, whereas DBCM resisted this requirement, in part, on the basis that it formed no part of the Environmental Management Programme that had been approved by the Department.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 15:01:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>705648</a_id>
        <updated>1757682204</updated>
        <published>1757682060</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001225845_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pilane and Others v Premier of the North West Province and Others (035/2024) [2025] ZASCA 126</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/pilane-and-others-v-premier-of-the-north-west-province-and-others-0352024-2025-zasca-126-2025-09-12</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  Statutory interpretation – North West Traditional Leadership and Governance Act 2 of 2005 – s 10(3) – Premier’s appointment of administrator without recommendation from  Royal Family – unlawful.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 15:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>705647</a_id>
        <updated>1757682089</updated>
        <published>1757682000</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001225842_resized_legalgavellawlawyer1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Vindiren Magadzire and Another (245/2024) [2025] ZASCA 81</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/minister-of-home-affairs-and-another-v-vindiren-magadzire-and-another-2452024-2025-zasca-81-2025-06-06</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  [1]             Since 2000, a substantial number of Zimbabwe nationals have come to South Africa. Some claim the protection of South Africa as refugees and asylum seekers; some have left Zimbabwe complaining of systemic discrimination; and others are likely to be economic migrants. The South African authorities lacked the administrative capacity to determine the status of so many migrants, and to make decisions concerning their rights. From 2009, the first appellant, the Minister of Home Affairs (the Minister) has exercised powers under s 31(2) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002 (the Immigration Act) to permit some 180 000 undocumented Zimbabweans to remain lawfully in South Africa. This was done under successive permitting regimes, the most recent of which is the Zimbabwe Exemption Permit (ZEP, and in the plural ZEPs).]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 15:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>698724</a_id>
        <updated>1749216723</updated>
        <published>1749216600</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001205222_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Mluleki Martin Chithi and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/mluleki-martin-chithi-and-others-v-minister-of-rural-development-and-land-reform-and-others-12032021-13342021-2612022-2024-zasca-149-2024-11-08</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  LAND TENURE – Restitution of rights – Whether “community” – Whether members derived possession and use of land from common rules – Rights individual occupiers may have enjoyed as labour tenants and later as farm workers – Were no longer derived from shared rules determining access to land held in common by a group in 1913 – Community claimants failed to prove that they constituted “community” as envisaged in the Restitution Act – Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2024 14:47:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>685466</a_id>
        <updated>1731070155</updated>
        <published>1731070020</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001167397_resized_legalgavellawlawyer1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Public Protector of South Africa v Chairperson of the Section 194(1) Committee and Others ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/public-protector-of-south-africa-v-chairperson-of-the-section-1941-committee-and-others-6272023-2024-zasca-131-2024-10-04</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the judgment on Saflii  Appeal to SCA brought in name of Public Protector when Ms Mkhwebane removed from office – Requirements for substitution – Uniform Rule 15 – Applies to change of status not change of persona – Finds no application in High Court after judgment or SCA – Challenge before High Court long overtaken by events – Appeal not properly before SCA, nor an appellant to prosecute it – Matter struck from roll.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2024 15:14:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>683043</a_id>
        <updated>1728047755</updated>
        <published>1728047640</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001160535_resized_gavelandscalesofjusticelegallaw1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>MEC for Economic Development Gauteng and Another v Sibongile Vilakazi and Others (783/2023) ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/mec-for-economic-development-gauteng-and-another-v-sibongile-vilakazi-and-others-7832023-2024-zasca-126-2024-09-20</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  FLYNOTES: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Interim interdict – Executive powers – Decision to terminate directorships and dissolve board – Relationship between MEC and board members had irretrievably broken down – Judicial limitation of executive powers not justified – High Court should have refused interim relief – Failed to show reasonable prospects of success – Substantial redress available – Respondents failed to establish requisites for interim relief – Appeal upheld.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 15:22:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>682099</a_id>
        <updated>1726838659</updated>
        <published>1726838520</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001157903_resized_gavel2legallaw1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Democratic Alliance v Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (700/2022) ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/democratic-alliance-v-minister-of-co-operative-governance-and-traditional-affairs-7002022-2024-zasca-65-2024-05-03</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the judgment on Saflii At the core of this appeal is the constitutional validity of s 27 of the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 (the DMA). The constitutional challenge occurred in the context of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak, which was declared as a global pandemic by the World Health Organisation. In one of several judgments in which this Court had occasion to pronounce on the Covid-19 pandemic, it said:]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2024 14:59:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>672173</a_id>
        <updated>1714741232</updated>
        <published>1714741140</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001129473_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary221022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
