Latest news with #SupremeCourtofAppeal
TimesLIVE
a day ago
- Health
- TimesLIVE
SCA overturns ruling on R500m Gauteng medical waste tender
'This position was communicated in the department's prior official statements on the matter released on November 30 2023 and reaffirmed on March 3 2024, after the department being granted leave to appeal the matter at the Supreme Court of Appeal.' TimesLIVE previously reported that Buhle Medical Waste had brought an urgent application in the Johannesburg high court to interdict Tshenolo Waste and Phuting Medical Waste Management from commencing their services, pending the outcome of a review into the awarding of the contracts. Tshenolo Waste had been awarded a R314m contract to collect and dispose of medical waste in Tshwane and Joburg, while Phuting Waste received a R211m contract covering the West Rand, Sedibeng and Ekurhuleni. However, in November last year, the high court set aside the tender. In its ruling dated July 15, the SCA found that the high court erred in setting aside administrative action through a declarator. 'The relief granted by the high court ... affected Tshenolo and other parties directly by depriving them of the opportunity to file comprehensive answering affidavits to the review application,' said judge Elizabeth Baartman. Modiba said the ruling affirmed the department's commitment to due process and fairness. He added that it also ensured the uninterrupted delivery of essential services, including the safe and consistent removal of medical waste from health care facilities across the province.
The South African
4 days ago
- Politics
- The South African
The Judicial Service Commission announces candidate shortlist
On 25 July 2025, the Judicial Service Commission announced the candidates that have been shortlisted for vacancies across various courts in South Africa. They will interview the selected candidates between 6 to 17 October 2025. The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, Land Court, Labour Court and multiple divisions of the High Court currently have open positions. 'The Constitutional Court advertised two vacancies. Six candidates have applied but only five of them are eligible to be shortlisted,' said the office of the JSC. According to the JSC, because they only had five qualifying candidates, the commission decided to re-advertise the positions. 'The advert was published on 18 July 2025, with a closing date of 6 August 2025,' they said. The commission further explained that the new applications will be narrowed down and will be sent as recommendations to the president. Despite the extension, the Constitutional Court applicants will also be interviewed in October. According to the JSC, the following candidates have been shortlisted to be interviewed in October for openings in the Supreme Court of Appeal: Judge Thandi Victoria Norman Judge Bashier Vally Judge Leonie Windell Judge Gerald Hercules Bloem Judge Busisiwe Shareen Masipa Judge Pitso Ephraim Molitsoane Although there are three vacancies open at the Johannesburg Labour Court, only one candidate, Suzanna Harvey, has made the cut. Nevertheless, law bodies and members of the public who wish to comment on the shortlisted candidates have been urged by the JSC to write to the commission's Secretariat. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
7 days ago
- Politics
- IOL News
Freedom of expression has limits, Supreme Court rules in social media defamation case
The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that neither the Constitution nor freedom of expression is an excuse for defamation. Image: FILE Neither the Constitution nor freedom of expression protects a person who posts defamatory material concerning another on social media, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in turning down an appeal by a farmer after his Facebook post sparked death threats against an attorney. A dispute arose between Pretoria attorney Pieter Strydom and farmer Francois Harman after the latter accused Strydom in a Facebook post of targeting white farmers. Strydom, upset by the contents of the post, obtained an urgent interdict against Harman to stop harassing him. The high court found that Harman and his friends and followers on his Facebook account posted and published offensive and life-threatening defamatory statements concerning Strydom. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Some of the postings were found by the high court to amount to a smear campaign. The high court ordered Harman to remove the published material from his Facebook account, which referred to Strydom. Harman was further ordered to submit, under oath, a list of the particulars of the persons who made the responding postings. While Harman had meanwhile removed his posts, he turned to the SCA to appeal against the fact that he had to disclose the particulars of his followers who published threats against Strydom. Strydom is an attorney and insolvency practitioner who also represents the Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and its financial agent, Unigro Financial Services. The Land Bank and Unigro advance loans to farmers, subject to agreed terms and conditions, which include mortgaging their farms as collateral. The loan agreements provide for annual instalment payments of the amount loaned, due to seasonal harvest of the crops. Whenever a farmer falls in default of payment, the Land Bank instructs its attorneys, in this case, Strydom's law firm, to institute legal proceedings to recover the debt. Included among the farmers was Harman and his company, who fell into arrears with payments. Harman took to his Facebook account, stating that Strydom and some officials at the Land Bank were the cause of his problems. Strydom obtained an interdict against Harman, prohibiting him from committing verbal abuse through electronic communication as well as refraining from harassing him. The order was obtained in Harman's absence. The following day, a messenger tried to serve him with the protection order, but Harman denied them entry into his house and instead photographed them. After they left, he again took to his Facebook account and posted the pictures together with a post regarding how the lives of white farmers are made difficult in the country. On the same day, his Facebook post was followed by a slew of other vitriolic postings from different persons - some made death threats towards Strydom. This resulted in the court ordering him to take down his post and to disclose the identities of those who had levelled threats and made defamatory statements towards Strydom. Harman refused to submit the list of his Facebook friends involved and cited various excuses, including that 'the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) prevented him from divulging this information. He also stated freedom of expression as an excuse. To post a message on Facebook that someone 'needs a bullet between the eyes' is an impermissible exercise of freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression, like all rights, has limits. The one obvious limit is when its exercise encroaches into the domain of another person's right, the SCA said. It found that Strydom is entitled to the list of persons responsible for these unlawful acts in order to vindicate his rights, if he deems fit to do so. Cape Times
Daily Maverick
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
New offshore oil and gas projects in direct conflict with SA's climate commitments
Virtually the entire coastal zone of South Africa (95%) has been leased out by the state for oil and gas exploration. How can a goal of 30% Marine Protected Areas align with 95% of the ocean under exploration leases? The ocean-loving public has justifiable concerns about plastic pollution, because it is horribly visible. Much less visible, but hugely important, is the relationship between climate change and the ocean. It's a multi-directional relationship, the ocean and us. A healthy ocean is our life support system. Half of global oxygen comes from phytoplankton growing in the ocean. The ocean removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which means it is working against climate change. But the more the ocean is damaged through warming and acidification (caused by warming), the less able it is to produce oxygen and absorb our carbon emissions. And then there is another threat: the ocean is a new frontier for fossil fuel mining. Virtually the entire coastal zone of South Africa (95%) has been leased out by the state for oil and gas exploration. Environmental organisations have been fighting for our lives in court. The high profile Shell-Wild Coast case opposing seismic testing led to victories for the environment in 2022 and 2024. However, perceptions that the battle against offshore oil and gas is over are misguided. In spite of wins in the high court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, Shell is still planning to go to the Constitutional Court. Similarly, the Searcher seismic case off the West Coast, from St Helena to Hondeklipbaai, was interdicted in 2022, but the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy subsequently granted new exploration permits in 2024 and 2025. Exploration by TotalEnergies EP South Africa is currently being legally contested by Green Connection and Natural Justice. These include a block between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas (see map: Blocks 5,6,7) and between Mossel Bay and Cape St Francis (see map: Blocks 11/12B). The scene is set for a battle between life and death, with environmental organisations challenging fossil fuel development in the ocean. Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe has loudly proclaimed that natural gas is a transition fuel that will take us into a sustainable (environmentally friendly) energy future. He claims it will provide an alternative to coal-based energy, and is in line with South Africa's Just Energy Transition. He hopes to set up a centralised 'war room' and dedicated courts to bypass environmentalists. Mantashe's campaign is a great gas greenwash and needs to be exposed. New oil and gas projects are in direct conflict with South Africa's climate commitments. We have agreed to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. That's not so far off. Your new baby will be 25 years old, and your granny may still be alive. And South African emissions are meant to peak in 2025 (that's now) and decline thereafter. How is that possible with new oil and gas projects coming online in the next 10 to 30 years? Our emissions are already too high. The International Energy Association and University College London have stated that we cannot meet international climate goals if new oil and gas projects are opened up. Risk of oil spills The offshore oil and gas industry also brings the risk of oil spills, which to date have not been adequately factored into mining permits. Although infrequent, they have devastating consequences. The rapid Agulhas Current along the East Coast could disperse oil as far as the West Coast. An oil spill affects the water column, the water surface, the shorelines and the seabed. It kills thousands of marine animals and destroys coastal livelihoods. A new scientific oil spill model in South Africa can predict the impacts of an oil blowout. It provides an objective, scientific tool for assessing the risks of ocean mining. Environmental organisations can now use this model to oppose offshore drilling. Even without an oil spill, offshore mining damages the ocean ecosystem. It physically damages the ocean floor and releases polluting sediments and toxic metals into the water. These activities destroy habitats, and biodiversity. Additionally, offshore oil and gas is economically risky. New markets would have to be developed in South Africa in tandem with massive infrastructure investment. This would lock South Africans into expensive dirty energy or could lead to stranded assets as the world turns away from fossil fuels. South African consumers and taxpayers would bear the brunt of this choice. At the same time, there is increasing evidence, including from the government's own models, that show that renewable energy is a cheaper, safer and faster source of energy for South Africa. Some consolation may be found in financial institutions around the world shifting away from investment in fossil fuel projects. In light of the above, why is the South African government supporting offshore mining? There is a lot of oil and gas out there — possibly 27 billion barrels of oil and 60 trillion cubic feet of gas. This may be profitable for the oil and gas industry in the short term, depending on how long it takes for global prices to decline. Cosy relationship with the gas industry And the government has a close and cosy relationship with the gas industry. The 2022 Gas Masterplan Basecase Report released by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy promotes a gas pathway for South Africa. It has been criticised for relying solely on input from the gas industry and for its lack of credible independent research. The relationship between the department and the gas industry is illustrated by the Mantashe-Ayuk bromance. NJ Ayuk is the chairperson of the non-profit Africa Energy Chamber, a trade group connecting oil and gas executives with government officials. Ayuk's Africa Energy Week is sponsored by a number of state-owned entities. Unsurprisingly, Ayuk has nothing but praise for Mantashe, describing him as a voice of reason regarding climate concerns. Mantashe, who is once again a target for investigation into criminal corruption, is on the same wavelength as Ayuk. The latter has criminal records for fraud, money laundering and maliciously targeting a journalist. Could the Mantashe-Ayuk bromance be contributing to this plan for ocean plunder? The figures don't add up. The government is deceiving us. How can a goal of 30% Marine Protected Areas align with 95% of the ocean under exploration leases? How can carbon emissions decline from 2025 if offshore oil and gas projects come online in the next 10 to 30 years? The next few years will be crucial in deciding the health of our oceans. Without this we face exponential global heating and the destruction of the ocean life support system. And yes, there are things that the ordinary person can do. The oil and gas industry knows that they face environmental and governance challenges, both globally and in South Africa. We can stop their ambitions from becoming reality, by supporting environmental organisations that are taking the legal route. These include organisations such as All Rise Attorneys, Natural Justice, Greenpeace Africa, The Green Connection, the Legal Resources Centre and 350Africa, as well as local coastal communities and organisations. Fighting for small-scale fishers A number of these organisations are also fighting for the customary rights of small-scale fishers who have been increasingly excluded from the ocean economy. This includes participation in the governance of marine resources. These organisations have already shown that, like David, they can tackle the giant. We need to inform ourselves and others about what they are doing. Everyone has a stake in this invisible threat of ocean destruction. In addition to legal challenges to offshore mining, the oceans need long-term protection. Marine Protected Area (MPAs) allow marine life to recover, climate resilience to improve and prevent mining. The government has committed to protecting 30% of South African oceans by 2030. At the moment only 5% is protected. That means that in the next five years, an additional 25% of South Africa's oceans must be declared protected areas. It sounds impossible but it's a goal worth fighting for. David Attenborough's words can inspire us to action: 'The ocean can bounce back to life. If left alone it may not just recover, but thrive beyond anything anyone alive has ever seen.' DM Dr Moraig Peden is a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion, Cape Town. She is a retired academic with a background in environmental education.
IOL News
22-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Supreme Court ruling clarifies limits of freedom of expression in social media defamation cases
The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that neither the Constitution nor freedom of expression is an excuse for defamation. Image: File Neither the Constitution nor the freedom of expression protects a person who posts defamatory material concerning another on social media, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in turning down an appeal by a farmer after a Facebook post by him sparked death threats against an attorney. A dispute arose between Pretoria attorney Pieter Strydom and farmer Francois Harman after the latter accused Strydom in a Facebook post of targeting white farmers. Strydom, upset by the contents of the post, obtained an urgent interdict against Harman to stop harassing him. The high court found that Harman and his friends and followers on his Facebook account posted and published offensive and life-threatening defamatory statements concerning Strydom. Some of the postings were found by the high court to amount to a smear campaign. The high court ordered Harman to remove the published material from his Facebook account, which referred to Strydom. Harman was further ordered to submit, under oath, a list of the particulars of the persons who made the responding postings. While Harman had meanwhile removed his posts, he turned to the SCA to appeal against the fact that he had to disclose the particulars of his followers who published threats against Strydom. Strydom is an attorney and insolvency practitioner who also represents the Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and its financial agent, Unigro Financial Services. The Land Bank and Unigro advance loans to farmers, subject to agreed terms and conditions, which include mortgaging their farms as collateral. The loan agreements provide for annual instalment payments of the amount loaned, due to seasonal harvest of the crops. Whenever a farmer falls in default of payment, the Land Bank instructs its attorneys, in this case, Strydom's law firm, to institute legal proceedings to recover the debt. Included among the farmers was Harman and his company, who fell into arrears with payments. Harman took to his Facebook account, stating that Strydom and some officials in the Land Bank were the cause of his problems. Strydom obtained an interdict against Harman, prohibiting him from committing verbal abuse through electronic communication as well as refraining from harassing him. The order was obtained in Harman's absence. The following day, a messenger tried to serve him with the protection order, but Harman denied them entry into his house and instead photographed them. After they left, he again took to his Facebook account and posted the pictures together with a post regarding how the lives of white farmers are made difficult in this country. On the same day, his Facebook post was followed by a slew of other vitriolic postings from different persons - some who made death threats towards Strydom. This resulted in the court ordering him to take down his post and to disclose the identities of those who had levelled threats and made defamatory statements towards Strydom. Harman refused to submit the list of his Facebook friends involved and cited various excuses, including that 'the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) prevented him from divulging this information. He also stated freedom of expression as an excuse. To post a message on Facebook that someone 'needs a bullet between the eyes' is an impermissible exercise of freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression, like all rights, has limits. The one obvious limit is when its exercise encroaches into the domain of another person's right, the SCA said. It found that Strydom is entitled to the list of persons responsible for these unlawful acts in order to vindicate his rights, if he deems fit to do so. [email protected]
