|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| 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Consent order conceding liability may not be rescinded absent court‑attributable patent error, fraud, or justus error; prescription cannot be belatedly introduced.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Consent orders will not be rescinded for alleged prescription absent court-attributable error or justus error.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 |
|
Failure to monitor fetal heart rate per guidelines during labour caused intrapartum HIE; defendant held liable and ordered to pay costs.
Obstetric/neonatal negligence – inadequate fetal heart‑rate monitoring contrary to Maternity Guidelines – intrapartum hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy causation; weight of pre‑trial admissions and joint expert minutes; rejection of speculative genetic/antenatal alternatives.
|
19 July 2024 |
|
Life sentence for repeated rape of a mentally vulnerable child by a father‑figure was not disproportionate; no substantial and compelling mitigation.
Criminal law – Minimum sentences – Rape of a child under 16 – Substantial and compelling circumstances; proportionality of prescribed life sentence; abuse of position of trust; effect of complainant's cognitive impairment; intoxication as mitigation.
|
16 July 2024 |
|
Life sentence for repeated rape of a vulnerable child by a father-figure was proportionate; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Minimum sentencing – rape of a child under 16 – substantial and compelling circumstances – abuse of position of trust; victim vulnerability (young age, cognitive impairment); repeated penetrative assaults; intoxication not established as mitigating; appellate reassessment of substantial and compelling circumstances permitted.
|
16 July 2024 |
|
A magistrate may not stay eviction proceedings absent a filed counterclaim in reconvention showing a prima facie prospect of success.
Civil procedure – Magistrates’ Court Act s47(1) – counterclaim/claim in reconvention exceeding jurisdiction – requirement to file reconventional claim before stay may be granted. Civil procedure – Rule 20 – procedure to apply for stay where claim in reconvention exceeds jurisdiction. Eviction law – stay of eviction pending High Court review to set aside transfer – Magistrates’ Court lacks jurisdiction to set aside transfer; stay only permitted upon filing of reconventional claim demonstrating prima facie prospect of success. Costs – appellate interference where lower court misdirected on costs though substantive decision stands.
|
9 July 2024 |
| June 2024 |
|
|
The defendant held vicariously liable for unlawful closure, assault and arrest of the applicant by SAPS members.
Police liability; unlawful closure of licensed premises; unlawful assault and arrest; J534 written notice; occurrence register as evidentiary admission; vicarious liability of State for SAPS conduct.
|
28 June 2024 |
|
Police unlawfully closed a tavern and unlawfully assaulted and arrested its proprietor; state held vicariously liable.
Police powers – unlawful closure of business premises; timing and justification of closure. Assault and arrest – evidentiary weight of J88 medical report and occurrence register entries. Written notice (J534) – procedural defects and failure to comply with s56 Criminal Procedure Act requirements. Vicarious liability – Minister of Police liable for wrongful acts of police members.
|
28 June 2024 |
|
Arrest and detention lawful on reasonable suspicion; malicious prosecution not proven; plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs.
Criminal procedure – warrantless arrest under s 40(1)(b) CPA – reasonable suspicion based on injured person, blood and weapons; discretionary arrest and detention pending bail; malicious prosecution – requirement of reasonable and probable cause and animus injuriandi; prosecutor’s decision-making and objective reasonableness.
|
20 June 2024 |
|
Failure to monitor a high‑risk labour led to intrapartum hypoxic brain injury; the defendant held vicariously liable for full damages.
Medical negligence — Obstetric nursing care — Failure to monitor fetal condition in high‑risk labour — Missed signs of fetal distress and meconium aspiration — Partial prolonged hypoxic‑ischaemic brain injury — Causation on balance of probabilities — Vicarious liability of State — Costs and interest awarded.
|
11 June 2024 |
|
Accused of Schedule 6 offences discharged exceptional-circumstances onus; appeal court granted bail with conditions.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Schedule 6 offences – Onus on accused to prove exceptional circumstances (s60(11)(a)) – Court must weigh s60(4) likelihoods against s60(9) factors – Magistrate’s misdirection and speculative findings may justify appellate interference under s65(4) – Granting bail subject to restrictive conditions.
|
7 June 2024 |
|
Magistrate properly refused bail for Schedule 6 offences; appellants failed to prove exceptional circumstances given violence and flight risk.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Schedule 6 offences – onus on accused to prove exceptional circumstances under s 60(11) CPA – ordinary personal circumstances not ordinarily exceptional. Bail – factors: violence, police pursuit, possession of firearms and stolen property, attempts to evade arrest amounting to danger and flight risk. Appeal – review of magistrate’s discretion – intervention only for material misdirection of fact or law; none established.
|
6 June 2024 |
| May 2024 |
|
|
A department cannot pay a consent-ordered award in instalments absent an agreement with the accounting officer.
Pre-trial and experts' joint minutes binding; public health defence exclusion; State Liability Amendment Act and PFMA require payment within 30 days absent agreement; consent-order variation not permitted without proper application.
|
27 May 2024 |
|
A fairness-based approach awarded sole authority over burial to the surviving spouse despite periods of separation.
Burial disputes – competing claims between surviving spouse and child; fairness approach to burial authority; whether separation equals paper marriage; evidentiary weight of alleged dying wishes; urgent relief where body held in mortuary.
|
18 May 2024 |
|
Plaintiff’s personal claim had not prescribed and statutory notice requirement was not shown to be breached; both special pleas dismissed.
Prescription – three-year period (s11(d) Prescription Act) – knowledge requirement (s12(3)) – onus on party alleging prescription to prove date of knowledge; Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 – s3(1)(a) statutory notice – purpose to prevent prejudice and allow investigation – failure to prove prejudice; uncontroverted concession by State witness fatal to special pleas.
|
7 May 2024 |
| April 2024 |
|
|
The plaintiff failed to prove unlawful arrest, unlawful continued detention, or malicious prosecution by the State.
Criminal procedure – Arrest without warrant – s40(1)(b) CPA – objective test of reasonable suspicion; Exercise of arrest discretion; Bail procedure – Schedule 6 offences and onus to show exceptional circumstances; Unlawful detention – causation and necessity of specific pleaded facts; Malicious prosecution – reasonable and probable cause and animus injuriandi; Pleading standards in actions for unlawful arrest and detention.
|
26 April 2024 |
|
Ex parte removal by a non-designated social worker was unlawful; court restored parental rights with supervised medical transition.
Children’s Act and parental rights – ex parte removal – locus standi of private medical social worker – Rule 57 compliance – curatrix personae – best interests of child with disabilities – joinder of Trust – supervised transitional placement and training.
|
25 April 2024 |
|
Application for rescission of 2011 striking‑out order and 2015 default judgment dismissed for deliberate default, delay and public‑interest finality.
Rescission — Uniform Rule 42(1)(a) — requirement of being ‘absent’ in legal sense; erroneous grant — Rule 35(7) two‑stage discovery/striking‑out procedure; common‑law rescission — dual test of satisfactory explanation and bona fide prospects of success; acquiescence, delay and finality of litigation; costs on attorney‑and‑client scale including two counsel.
|
25 April 2024 |
|
Advanced age alone does not justify departing from life sentence for calculated rape of a foster child.
Criminal law – Minimum sentencing – Rape of a minor in care – Prescribed life sentence; advanced age alone is not necessarily substantial and compelling; breach of trust, repeated and calculated abuse and severe psychological harm are significant aggravating factors; appellate interference with sentencing limited to misdirection or startling inappropriateness.
|
16 April 2024 |
|
Reported
Placental pathology indicated antepartum injury from chorioamnionitis, not proven intrapartum negligence; appeal dismissed.
Medical negligence – causation – importance of placental histopathology and arterial blood gas in timing hypoxic-ischaemic injury; expert evidence – weight and fact-based reasoning; admissibility and effect of undisputed medical records; limitations of CTG monitoring; appeal standard on factual findings.
|
9 April 2024 |
|
Withdrawal of a defendant’s special plea is not a “proceeding” under Rule 41(1), so Rule 41(1)(c) costs relief is unavailable.
Uniform Rule 41(1)(a),(c) – meaning of “proceedings” – ‘geding’ (action/application) – withdrawal of special plea not a withdrawal of proceedings – special plea is a defensive pleading; costs – Rule 41(1)(c) remedy unavailable where special plea withdrawn.
|
8 April 2024 |
| March 2024 |
|
|
Applicant entitled to return of lawfully seized firearm, licence and cartridges after unreasonable retention and inadequate State justification.
Criminal procedure — Seizure and detention of articles (ss 20–31 Criminal Procedure Act) — Two-stage enquiry under s31 — applicant must prove no pending or reasonably likely criminal proceedings; onus then shifts to State to prove applicant not lawfully entitled to possession — detention must be reasonable and not oppressive — inadequate, hearsay answering affidavit by deponent without personal knowledge insufficient to resist return.
|
27 March 2024 |
|
District hospital’s failure to provide timely caesarean or transfer breached guidelines and caused newborn’s hypoxic brain injury.
Medical negligence – Obstetric care – Failure to ensure district hospital able to perform emergency caesarean 24/7 – One‑hour decision‑to‑delivery rule – Causation of intrapartum hypoxic ischaemic brain injury leading to cerebral palsy – Liability and costs.
|
19 March 2024 |
|
Negligent intrapartum management, inadequate monitoring and delays in intervention caused a neonatal hypoxic‑ischaemic injury leading to cerebral palsy.
Medical negligence – obstetric care – prolonged labour, untreated gestational hypertension, inadequate CTG monitoring and delayed delivery; Radiology – MRI pattern consistent with peri‑partum hypoxic‑ischaemic injury (PBGT/Central); Causation – application of Consensus/ACOG criteria and balance of probabilities to link negligent intrapartum management to neonatal encephalopathy and subsequent cerebral palsy; Poor record‑keeping as evidence of substandard care.
|
15 March 2024 |
| February 2024 |
|
|
Applicant church failed to establish a clear right or imminent harm; interdict refused and no costs ordered.
• Civil procedure – locus standi in motion proceedings – deponent to affidavit versus authority to institute and prosecute proceedings.
• Interdict – requirements: clear right, reasonable apprehension of harm, absence of adequate alternative remedy (Plascon‑Evans application).
• Church/internal governance – scope and relevance of internal dispute-resolution clause to court proceedings.
• Membership evidence – pledge cards as proof of entitlement to worship and use of church premises.
• Costs – discretion to depart from usual rule where dispute is between individuals within same juristic entity.
|
6 February 2024 |
| January 2024 |
|
|
Default PAIA order rescinded where requester failed to comply with PAIA formalities and misstated material facts to the court.
Administrative law – Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) – mandatory compliance with procedural requirements and prescribed forms for requests and internal appeals; court may not order disclosure absent full compliance. Civil procedure – rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) – an order is ‘erroneously granted’ where material facts unknown to the court, if disclosed, would have prevented the order; duty of disclosure in default/ex parte proceedings. PAIA procedure – applications must be addressed to the information officer (or head); improper citation of Minister of Police may render orders erroneous.
|
30 January 2024 |