This blog is co-authored by Eric Geldenhuys, candidate attorney.

Several aviation industry bodies (Industry Bodies) sought to halt the implementation of current South African Civil Aviation Technical Standards 2 of 2025 (SA‑CATS 2/2025) and to reinstate the 12‑year calendar engine overhaul recommendation per Aeronautical Information Circular 18.19 (AIC 18.19). In October 2025 the court declined to prohibit the implementation of SA‑CATS 2/2025 and to reinstate AIC 18.19. The court ruled on the appropriateness of interim interdicts in the absence of a review challenge. The court did not decide on the long-term merits of the regulator’s decisions, which remain in force until set aside.

Background

For two decades, AIC 18.19 operated as a general exemption to the 12‑year calendar engine overhaul requirement for certain Textron Lycoming and Teledyne Continental piston engines. Instead of a time‑based overhaul, it permitted continued operation if condition‑based inspections and other airworthiness steps were completed. 

The Director of Civil Aviation (DCA) withdrew AIC 18.19 on 2 November 2023, issued two 180‑day general exemptions, and later a general “waiver” notice in November 2024. On 19 June 2025, SA‑CATS 2/2025 was approved without a replacement alternative method of compliance. Industry Bodies urgently approached the high court to pause SA‑CATS 2/2025 and reinstate AIC 18.19.

SA‑CATS 2/2025 requires owners and operators of aircraft to comply fully with Civil Aviation Regulations 43.02.5 and the associated SA-CATS 43.02.5, as well as specific maintenance requirements and recommendations set out by engine manufacturers. For more details on the change read our blog of July 2025: SACAA enforces 12-year engine overhaul rule: what it means for South African aviation | Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot.

The judgment of the High Court

The court considered:

(1)   whether a court may grant an interim interdict suspending or reversing executive regulatory decisions in the absence of a pending review or constitutional challenge;

(2)   whether the Industry Bodies had shown a protectable right to enable to court to grant interim relief;

(3)   whether the relief sought would intrude into executive decision‑making, contrary to the separation of powers doctrine (being that courts should avoid usurping the government’s functions).

The court accepted that the withdrawal of the exemption and the new standards have significant practical effects for parts of the sector, including maintenance costs and planning, insurance coverage, and operational availability. 

The Industry Bodies did not challenge the withdrawal of AIC 18.19 nor the new of aviation maintenance regulations on administrative justice grounds. In those circumstances, the court held that the decisions of the regulator will stay in effect until set aside on review. The court would not interdict the regulator nor reinstate the exemption in the interim, because that would intrude on executive functions and offend separation of powers principles.  Interdicts prevent imminent harm to existing rights and do not freeze already‑made regulatory decisions absent legal challenges. The court relied on the principle that even if a government decision was taken unlawfully, it remains valid and has legal effect until judicially challenged and set aside.

The court also held that no protectable prima facie right was threatened; the rights asserted, to apply for alternative methods of compliance and to make proposals, were available without court intervention.  

Impact

The decision by the high court means SA‑CATS 2/2025 remains in force unless it is set aside or amended. Operators may pursue applications for alternative means of compliance and submit proposals within the established regulatory framework.

Full case: Commercial Aviation Association of South Africa NPC and Others v Director of Civil Aviation and Others (Gauteng Division, Pretoria, Case No. 2025‑109584 (10 October 2025))