|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2025 |
|
|
Court refused to develop common law for undertaking-to-pay remedy and awarded a lump-sum for future medical care.
Delict — future medical expenses — whether common law should be developed to permit undertaking-to-pay or in-kind relief — pleadings and cogent factual evidence required — case-by-case inquiry; public-healthcare remedy; enforceability, budgeting and implementation concerns; award of lump-sum, interest, trust and costs.
|
18 November 2025 |
|
No substantial and compelling circumstances found; life sentence imposed for murder linked to aggravated robbery; s204 witness discharged.
Criminal law – Minimum Sentences Act – s 51(1) murder linked to robbery with aggravating circumstances – substantial and compelling circumstances required to deviate – sentencing triad – elderly victim killed in home – s 204 witness discharged after frank and honest testimony.
|
18 November 2025 |
|
Court applied minimum‑sentence regime, fixed a s276B non‑parole period for recidivist leader and imposed correctional supervision for a peripheral offender.
Sentencing — minimum sentences (Criminal Law Amendment Act s51(2)) — substantial and compelling circumstances — section 276B Criminal Procedure Act (non‑parole period) — correctional supervision s276(1)(h) and s276A — s103 Firearms Control Act (declaration of unfitness) — concurrency and cumulative sentencing — recidivism and parole revocation.
|
18 November 2025 |
| October 2025 |
|
|
Initial arrest lawful; continued detention not shown to result from malicious police or prosecutorial conduct.
Constitutional right to freedom and protection against arbitrary detention; lawful arrest on reasonable suspicion (s 40(1)(b) CPA); exercise of police discretion; lawfulness of initial detention until first court appearance; joinder and addition of charges (ss 81–83 CPA); bail proceedings and interests of justice (ss 50, 60 CPA); malicious deprivation of liberty—requirements of absence of reasonable and probable cause and animus iniuriandi; causation for state liability for continued detention.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Absent evidence, a public-healthcare defence cannot displace the lump-sum damages rule; lump-sum award and trust ordered.
Public-healthcare defence; undertaking-to-pay remedies; once-and-for-all lump-sum damages rule; requirement to lead cogent evidence to justify in-kind or periodic remedies; entitlement to actuarialised future damages; creation of special trust and payment within 30 days.
|
14 October 2025 |
|
Court accepted an accomplice’s credible evidence and convicted the accused of murder, housebreaking and robbery with aggravating circumstances.
Criminal law – murder – single accomplice witness (minor) – application of cautionary rule and corroboration; housebreaking with intent to steal; robbery with aggravating circumstances – circumstantial evidence and R v Blom test; assessment of alibi and credibility.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Reconnection relief held moot; court orders municipality to answer applicant’s section 102 account dispute within 60 days.
Mootness—application for reconnection rendered academic where electricity restored; Municipal law—section 102 dispute: municipality obliged to answer disputes on accounts; Administrative law—failure to answer account dispute constitutes procedural unfairness warranting remedial relief; Costs—successful limited relief entitles applicant to costs on Scale A.
|
2 October 2025 |
|
Court convicted multiple accused of murder, kidnapping and public violence based on common purpose and credible evidence.
Criminal law – Murder; kidnapping; public violence – Doctrine of common purpose – prior meetings and active association – sufficiency of eyewitness, police and medico‑legal evidence – disassociation and withdrawal – public violence not duplicative of murder.
|
2 October 2025 |
| September 2025 |
|
|
Applicant facing credible threats entitled to interim protective services pending review to safeguard life and bodily integrity.
Urgent interim interdict – prima facie right to security/protection – right to life and bodily integrity – irreparable harm – balance of convenience. Rule 6(12)(a) URC – condonation of non‑compliance with service/time in urgent applications. Confidentiality breach of Threat and Risk Assessment increases security risk and informs need for interim protection.
|
25 September 2025 |
|
Condonation granted for failure to serve statutory notice where good cause shown and respondent failed to prove prejudice.
Administrative / Constitutional law – Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 – condonation under s 3(4) for failure to serve s 3(2)(a) notice. Civil procedure – requirements for condonation: non-prescription, good cause, absence of undue prejudice. Reliance on previous attorney’s dilatoriness and prompt action by new attorneys can constitute good cause. Interpretation – purposive, constitutionally-informed approach; right of access to courts relevant to condonation applications.
|
23 September 2025 |
|
Unmonitored intrapartum care breached duty of care and, on probabilities, caused the child’s hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury; defendant 100% liable.
Medical negligence; obstetric care; failure to assess and monitor labour per maternity guidelines; intrapartum hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy; expert evidence and causation on probabilities; defendant 100% liable.
|
9 September 2025 |
|
Whether substantial and compelling circumstances justify departure from minimum sentences under section 51.
Criminal procedure – plea under s 112(2) – adequacy of factual matrix to support conviction and reliance on s 51 Minimum Sentences Act; Minimum Sentences Act s 51 – murders in course of robbery and jurisdictional facts; Sentencing – role of intoxication, youth, remorse and re‑offending on bail; Sentencing principles – Zinn triad, substantial and compelling circumstances; Victim support – court-ordered counselling; Firearms control – declaration of unfitness under s 103.
|
4 September 2025 |
| August 2025 |
|
|
An appeal against conviction and life sentence for murder and related offences was dismissed, confirming proper application of common purpose and sentencing principles.
Criminal law – Murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, attempted murder – Common purpose – Identification – Intoxication as defence – Minimum sentences – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Application of common purpose doctrine – Reliability of identification – Sentencing discretion and substantial and compelling circumstances.
|
12 August 2025 |
|
Police officers’ arrest and detention of the applicant for rape was lawful, based on reasonable suspicion and proper exercise of discretion.
Unlawful arrest – arrest without warrant – section 40(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Act – reasonable suspicion – exercise of police discretion – post-arrest detention – quantum of damages – claims for unlawful arrest and detention dismissed.
|
12 August 2025 |
|
An unjust enrichment claim against an organ of state is not a "debt" under Act 40 of 2002; notice requirement therefore inapplicable.
Constitutional and procedural law – Court may raise a point of law mero motu; Administrative/contractual claims – Unjust enrichment is not a "debt" under Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 and does not require the Act’s six‑month statutory notice; Pleadings – Proper characterisation of cause of action (enrichment v negligent omission) determines applicability of Act; Prescription – suitability of adjudication at interlocutory stage.
|
4 August 2025 |
| July 2025 |
|
|
Hospital staff’s negligence in labour management found to have caused a child’s hypoxic brain injury, establishing liability for damages.
Medical negligence – Causation – Hypoxic ischaemic brain injury at birth – Causal link between sub-standard obstetric care and cerebral palsy – Expert medical evidence – Assessment of conflicting pediatric opinions – Liability for damages in representative capacity.
|
29 July 2025 |
| June 2025 |
|
|
Future medical negligence compensation requires specific criteria to apply non-lump sum payments.
Medical Negligence – compensation – development of common law – undertaking to pay remedies – public healthcare defense abandonment
|
27 June 2025 |
|
Court affirms mother's standing and compliance, directing the Fund to process the child's injury claim under RAFA.
Road Accident Fund Act – Locus standi – Registration compliance – Court's authority over administrative excuses by the Fund.
|
13 June 2025 |
|
Appeal upheld due to magistrate's arbitrary refusal of bail lacking evidentiary consideration.
Criminal Law – Bail refusal – Appeal – Whether magistrate's decision was wrong – Consideration of all relevant evidence and proper judicial reasoning required.
|
12 June 2025 |
|
State respondents’ delayed compliance with pension-order constituted civil contempt and breach of constitutional obligations; costs awarded to applicant.
Contempt of court – Civil contempt for failure to comply with administrative orders – State organ’s constitutional duty to comply diligently and without delay (ss 2, 165(5), 237) – Proof and onus in civil contempt (service, non-compliance, wilfulness; inference and rebuttal) – Costs: party-and-party; counsel costs taxed on Scale C (Rules 67A and 69).
|
3 June 2025 |
| May 2025 |
|
|
Applicant complied with notice requirements; respondent's opposition deemed unnecessary and obstructive.
Civil Procedure – Institution of Legal Proceedings against State – Compliance with statutory notice requirements – Prescription period – Condonation for late notice filing.
|
15 May 2025 |
|
Applicant’s notice under ILPACOSA held timely; prescription delayed until legal advice, condonation alternatively granted.
Administrative law; civil procedure – statutory notice under ILPACOSA s3(2) – timing and compliance; Prescription Act s12(3) – actual and imputed knowledge in medical negligence claims; condonation under ILPACOSA s3(4) – requirements (no extinguishment by prescription, good cause, no unreasonable prejudice); allowance of supplementary affidavit; costs against organ of state.
|
15 May 2025 |
|
Condonation granted for technical non-compliance; applicant allowed to pursue claim as no prejudice to respondent.
Civil Procedure - State Liability Act compliance - Summons service - Condonation for procedural non-compliance granted.
|
13 May 2025 |
| April 2025 |
|
|
An internal investigative report making conclusive adverse findings was reviewable and set aside for procedural unfairness and overreach.
Administrative law – internal investigation – whether an investigatory report making conclusive adverse findings constitutes reviewable exercise of public power under the principle of legality/PAJA. Principle of legality – overreach of investigatory mandate where investigator pronounces on culpability. Procedural fairness – audi alteram partem and legitimate expectation to be heard; necessity of meaningful opportunity and disclosure of documents. Mootness – completion of investigation does not necessarily render review inappropriate where practical consequences remain. Remedy – review and setting aside of procedurally tainted report; costs awarded including counsel’s fees on Scale C.
|
5 April 2025 |
| March 2025 |
|
|
Section 174 discharge refused: State proved a prima facie case of kidnapping, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and murder.
Criminal procedure – Section 174 CPA – discharge at close of State case – test is whether there is evidence upon which a reasonable person might convict (prima facie case); Kidnapping – unlawful deprivation of freedom of movement by forcible control and relocation; Assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm – repeated application of force with hands, feet and blunt implements; Murder – death by blunt trauma to the head consistent with assaults; Credibility – limited role at section 174 stage, adverse credibility findings premature unless evidence is inherently unbelievable.
|
14 March 2025 |
|
The appeal succeeds due to the appellant's reasonable delay explanation and good prospects of success in the main action.
Legal procedures – condonation of late notice – unsophisticated layman – unlawful arrest – prima facie burden on respondent.
|
4 March 2025 |
| February 2025 |
|
|
Conviction under s67A without a separate charge is irregular; proper s67(3) enquiry requires reinstatement of bail and setting aside conviction.
Criminal procedure – Failure to appear while on bail – Distinction between summary enquiry under s67(3) and prosecution under s67A of the Criminal Procedure Act – Conviction without separate charge invalid – Conviction and sentence set aside on review.
|
11 February 2025 |
|
Contempt application dismissed due to defective PAIA order, inadequate service/notification and attempt to compel non-existent records.
Administrative law – Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) – procedural requirements for notices and set down – State Attorney reference and Rule 23(m) – effect of service over court recess (Uniform Rule 6(5)(b)(iii)) – contempt proceedings – inability of PAIA to compel non-existent records – use of Rule 42 to correct orders.
|
7 February 2025 |
| January 2025 |
|
|
A purchaser who has paid at least 50% cannot rely on s 27(1) to demand transfer once the sale has been validly cancelled.
• Property law – Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 s 27(1) – rights of purchaser who has paid at least 50% – requirement of an extant contract and/or demand for transfer.
• Contract law – cancellation – effect of valid cancellation on purchaser’s statutory remedies under s 27(1).
• Civil procedure – disputes of fact on affidavit – stringent test for referral to viva voce evidence.
• Costs – discretion to award punitive costs only where justified; substitution with party-and-party costs where no basis for attorney-and-client order.
|
28 January 2025 |
|
Property ownership claims must demonstrate a clear right; past events cannot be interdicted through appeals.
Property Law – Interdictory relief – Requisites for final interdict – Failure to demonstrate clear ownership rights – Procedural delay in appeal reinstatement.
|
22 January 2025 |
|
Whether permanent appointments of foreign nationals by an unauthorised official, contrary to s10 PSA and policy, are unlawful and what remedy is just and equitable.
• Administrative law – legality doctrine – organs of state may exercise no power beyond that conferred by law; appointments contrary to clear statutory prohibition unlawful.
• Public Service Act s10 – permanent appointment limited to South African citizens or permanent residents; foreign nationals may only be employed temporarily in terms of policy.
• Self-review by State – undue delay in instituting review measured by Khumalo/Asla principles; nonetheless clear illegality may require declaration of invalidity.
• Remedies – section 172(1)(b) discretion to craft just and equitable relief including suspended declarations to mitigate prejudice.
|
21 January 2025 |
| December 2024 |
|
|
Appellants failed to prove exceptional circumstances for bail on Schedule 6 charges; magistrate’s refusal upheld.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Schedule 6 offences – Onus on accused to show exceptional circumstances under s60(11)(a) – Interests of justice enquiry. Magistrate’s discretion – limited appellate interference unless decision was wrong per s65(4). Strength of State case – prima facie case established by vehicle identification and recovery of firearms. Procedural issues – answering affidavits and reopening case at bail stage inappropriate where accused bore evidential onus.
|
18 December 2024 |
|
Police fired a rubber bullet at the plaintiff contrary to protocol, rendering the defendant liable for negligent conduct.
Police use of force – rubber bullets – whether plaintiff struck; adherence to dispersal/warning protocol; credibility of witnesses; State liability for wrongful and negligent conduct; costs reserved pending quantum.
|
5 December 2024 |
| November 2024 |
|
|
Consent order conceding liability may not be rescinded absent court‑attributable patent error, fraud, or justus error; prescription cannot be belatedly introduced.
Consent orders — rescission — Rule 42(1)(b): requires ambiguity or patent error attributable to the court; Justus error/fraud required to set aside consent order; Prescription Act s17(2) — discretion to allow late plea does not permit re‑opening consent judgment where mandate, agreement and finality prevail; finality and prejudice to successful party govern rescission applications.
|
19 November 2024 |
|
Consent orders will not be rescinded for alleged prescription absent court-attributable error or justus error.
Civil procedure – Rule 42(1)(b) – rescission/variation of judgment – requires ambiguity, patent error or omission attributable to the court; cannot be used to reopen consensual settlements. Common law – justus error – rare exceptional remedy; consent orders not set aside absent fraud, mistake attributable to the court, or vitiation of true consent. Prescription – special plea should be raised in pleadings; cannot be introduced to reopen a consent order where it would prejudice plaintiff and undermine finality.
|
19 November 2024 |
|
An exception taken for vagueness without the mandatory Rule 23(1)(a) notice and sufficient particulars is irregular and was dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – Exception to pleading; Rule 23(1)(a) mandatory notice where pleading alleged vague and embarrassing; Rule 18(4) particulars required in pleadings; Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40/2002 – s3(1) notice and special plea; Prescription – proper raising by special plea; matters intertwined with merits may be left for trial.
|
19 November 2024 |
|
Exception dismissed: plaintiff failed to give mandatory Rule 23 notice and did not particularise grounds; special pleas properly raised.
Civil procedure – Exception to pleading – Rule 23(1)(a) mandatory notice and opportunity to remove cause of complaint – Rule 23(3) and Rule 18(4) requirements for clear, concise grounds and particulars – Special pleas (s3(1) Act 40/2002 and prescription) properly raised as matters of law intertwined with merits.
|
19 November 2024 |
|
Applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances under section 60(11)(a); medical evidence insufficient to justify bail.
Criminal procedure – bail on new facts – section 60(11)(a) CPA – onus on accused to show exceptional circumstances; previous and new facts must be considered together. Evidential issues – cell-phone records and ‘new evidence’ – availability and timing determine whether facts are new. Prisoner health – alleged medical necessity – adequacy of prison healthcare and private consultations at inmate’s expense. Public interest and safety – risk of witness interference, destruction of evidence and endangerment weigh against bail. Separation of powers – court will not usurp prosecutorial discretion to determine charge/schedule in bail proceedings.
|
12 November 2024 |
|
Accused under Schedule 6 failed to establish exceptional new facts (including medical necessity); bail was refused.
Criminal procedure – bail on new facts – section 60(11)(a) CPA – onus on accused to prove exceptional circumstances – new and old facts to be considered together. Pre‑trial detention – medical condition – unsworn specialist letter insufficient to establish exceptional circumstances. Evidence – cell‑phone records and alleged interference – not shown to be new or to undermine State case. Public interest and safety – risk of witness interference and destruction of evidence militates against bail.
|
12 November 2024 |
|
Whether medical issues and cellphone material constitute exceptional circumstances under s60(11)(a) to justify bail.
Criminal procedure — Bail on new facts — section 60(11)(a) CPA — accused bears onus to show exceptional circumstances permitting release. Bail on new facts — repetition and non‑novelty — court must consider totality of old and new facts; same or unmeritorious facts will not succeed. Medical grounds for bail — specialist letter indicating need for regular consultations does not necessarily constitute exceptional circumstances where custodial medical care and referral mechanisms exist. Witness safety and risk of interference — strong countervailing factor against bail in serious, organized offences. Prosecutorial charging discretion and schedule — bail court should not usurp prosecution’s charging decisions; substantive determination of premeditation is for trial.
|
12 November 2024 |
| October 2024 |
|
|
Applicants had a legitimate expectation and contractual basis for Phase 3; court ordered respondents to file and implement a supervised plan.
Administrative law – learnership/EPWP – three‑phase contractor development programme – legitimate expectation and supervisory relief to compel state to implement outstanding phase; contract and documentary evidence upheld; deregistered entities lack standing; implementation to be effected by state plan subject to procurement/CIDB/Treasury constraints.
|
15 October 2024 |
| September 2024 |
|
|
Departments occupying leased premises and the Premier had direct, substantial interests and were properly joined to the action.
Civil procedure – Joinder – Direct and substantial interest test for intervention/joinder – application of Mulaudzi and SA Riding for the Disabled Association and Uniform Rule 10. State parties – non-joinder raised by defendant – occupants' proprietary/beneficial interest (furniture/boxes) and budgetary interest of the Premier. Procedural relief – leave to amend particulars, timelines for intention to defend and pleadings. Costs – second and third respondents ordered to pay costs on scale B (rule 69(7)).
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Condonation granted for late answering affidavits to interlocutory Rule 30 and 30A applications; costs reserved.
Civil procedure – Interlocutory applications – rule 6(11) – answering affidavits to be filed within a reasonable time, not automatically the periods in rule 6(5). Condonation – late filing of answering affidavits – delay of 38 days not excessive where respondent failed to set matter down or take steps. Rule 30(2)(c) and rule 30A(2) applications – procedural timeliness and prejudice considered. Rule 37A (case flow management) inapplicable to interlocutory applications to compel or postpone. Costs reserved for determination by the court hearing the substantive amendment application.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Court granted condonation for late section 3 notice where discovery delays and best interests of minor justified the delay.
Administrative law / civil procedure – Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 – condonation for late section 3 notice; requirements of s 3(4)(b): non-prescription, good cause, absence of unreasonable prejudice; discovery delays and need for clinical records as explanatory grounds; best interests of minor claimant; application unopposed.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Condonation for the minor child’s claim granted; condonation for the mother’s personal claim refused due to delay and non-disclosure.
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 — s3(2) notice — condonation under s3(4). Condonation — requirements: full, detailed and candid explanation; prompt application; assessment of prospects of success and prejudice. Separate treatment of claims — distinction between applicant’s personal claim and minor child’s claim; best interests of the child as upper guardian. Non-disclosure of prior instructions and special power of attorney undermines candour and weighs against condonation. Costs — costs follow result for condonation of minor’s claim (party-and-party, scale B).
|
3 September 2024 |
| August 2024 |
|
|
Default judgment granted: agreement cancelled and vehicle repossessed; debit-order timing complaint not a defence.
Default judgment – credit agreement – confirmation of cancellation – repossession of secured goods – debtor’s complaint about debit-order timing not a defence – retention of payments – leave to claim deficiency and interest – costs on attorney and client scale.
|
30 August 2024 |
|
Misjoinder upheld as second defendant lacked contractual nexus; 'once-and-for-all' rule inapplicable because causes of action were distinct.
Joinder and misjoinder of defendants — Uniform Rule 10(3); 'once and for all' rule — requirement to consolidate claims from same cause of action; distinction between urgent enforcement relief and subsequent damages claim; principles from Custom Credit v Shembe and recent Constitutional Court authority on causes of action.
|
27 August 2024 |
|
Pre‑trial admissions and expert evidence established that inadequate intrapartum monitoring causally led to the child’s hypoxic ischaemic brain injury; defendant liable.
Medical negligence – obstetric care – inadequate intra‑partum fetal monitoring after Oxytocin augmentation – causal link to hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE); Acute‑profound vs partial‑prolonged MRI patterns – ACOG 2019 and peer‑reviewed evidence; Pre‑trial admissions – withdrawal denied; Causation – factual (but‑for) and legal proximity; Punitive costs for abusive defence conduct.
|
27 August 2024 |
|
Respondent’s inadequate monitoring and delayed caesarean caused intrapartum HIE and resultant cerebral palsy; respondent liable.
Medical negligence – obstetric care – inadequate fetal monitoring and delayed caesarean – intrapartum hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) – MRI watershed pattern – causation on balance of probabilities – failure of defendant to call factual witnesses – costs of two counsel.
|
6 August 2024 |
| July 2024 |
|
|
Proceedings set aside where accused was represented by an attorney practising without a fidelity fund certificate.
Legal Practice Act s84 – fidelity fund certificate mandatory for attorneys practising on own account; Criminal Procedure Act s73(2) – representation permissible only by persons lawfully entitled to appear; practising without fidelity fund certificate is a fundamental irregularity; proceedings vitiated and declared nullity ab initio; remedy: set aside and trial de novo before a different magistrate.
|
22 July 2024 |