Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:16:56Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:16:56Z
dc.date.created 2013-08-06 en
dc.identifier.citation [2014] ZACC 6
dc.identifier.citation 2014 (5) BCLR 547 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2014 (3) SA 481 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3729
dc.title Member of the Executive Council for Health Eastern Cape and Another v Kirland Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Eye & Lazer Institute en
dc.title.alternative CCT77/13 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT77/13 en
dc.date.hearing 12 November 2013
dc.contributor.judge Cameron J Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Froneman J separate judgment
dc.contributor.judge Zondo J separate judgment
dc.contributor.judge Jafta J separate judgment
dc.date.judgment 25 March 2014
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3729/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28405%20Kb%29-21938.pdf?sequence=9&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Administrative action – validity of administrative decision not the subject of counter-application or separate review application – beneficiary of decision prejudiced – proper process must be followed to set the decision aside – validity of decision not before the Court 2 Administrative action – status of administrative decision improperly taken – decision remains effectual until properly set aside and cannot be ignored – application of Oudekraal judgment. Application for leave to appeal concerning the validity of the approval granted by the Acting Superintendent-General, the Superintendent-General’s subsequent decision to withdraw that approval and the MEC’s decision to dismiss the respondent’s appeal against the withdrawal. The Court held that the Supreme Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the initial approval could not be set aside as it was not properly before the court in the absence of a counter-application for review brought by the state parties. This Court held that the respondent could not have been aware of the political machinations behind the approval decision and did not ask the Court to rule on its validity. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Majority: Cameron J (Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Dambuza AJ, Froneman J, Mhlantla AJ and Nkabinde J concurring). Separate concurrence: Froneman J. Separate concurrence: Zondo J. Minority: Jafta J (Madlanga J and Zondo J concurring).
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the SCA: MEC for Health, Province of Eastern Cape NO and Another v Kirland Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Eye & Laser Institute (473/12) [2013] ZASCA 58; 2014 (3) SA 219 (SCA) (16 May 2013). The case was previously heard in the Grahamstown High Court: Kirland Investment (Pty) Ltd t/a Eye & Lazer Institute v MEC for Health, Province of Eastern Cape NO and Others (870/09) [2011] ZAECGHC 78 (15 December 2011).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account