|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2022 |
|
|
Applicants must exhaust the section 30 regulatory remedy before seeking judicial review under PAJA.
PAJA – s7(2) mandatory exhaustion of internal remedies; Electricity Regulation Act – s30 as internal remedy; administrative review – non‑exhaustion bars PAJA review; no discretion to postpone where s7(2)(b) applies; exceptional circumstances under s7(2)(c) not established.
|
18 October 2022 |
|
Court upheld prescribed minimum sentence for robbery; no substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate.
Criminal law – sentencing – robbery with aggravating circumstances – prescribed minimum sentence; sentencing discretion on appeal – test for interference; consideration of pre-trial custody and concurrent sentences; aggravating effect of weapon use even without physical injury.
|
18 October 2022 |
|
An appellate court will not disturb a prescribed-minimum murder sentence absent material misdirection or demonstrable substantial and compelling circumstances.
Criminal law – Murder – Minimum sentences under Criminal Law Amendment Act – whether substantial and compelling circumstances justify deviation from 15 years. Sentencing – appellate review – Malgas test; deference to trial court absent material misdirection. Mitigation – alleged jealousy/‘crime of passion’ and diminished responsibility must be placed on record by accused; courts will not speculate. Comparative authorities distinguished where factual bases for mitigation existed.
|
18 October 2022 |
|
Applicant entitled to R15,000 monthly pendente lite credit‑card payments; trust obligations cannot be enforced in Rule 43 against a non‑party.
Civil procedure – Rule 43 pendente lite relief – limits of Rule 43 where obligations are those of a trust not a party to the proceedings; Interim maintenance – entitlement to interim personal payments during divorce proceedings; Interim legal costs – assessment of reasonableness and reduction where mediation likely; Costs – usual order that costs follow main proceedings.
|
11 October 2022 |
|
Applicant’s urgent bid for free access to a former matrimonial home to collect belongings dismissed; items already packed and ordinary remedies available.
Family law – access to former matrimonial home barred by domestic violence interdict – applicant’s right to collect personal effects – Plascon-Evans approach to disputed facts in motion proceedings – availability of rei vindicatio or damages as ordinary remedies – costs.
|
11 October 2022 |
|
Applicant was refused urgent access to the former matrimonial home after the respondent had already packed and made his belongings available for collection.
Family law – Divorce – Access to former matrimonial home – Collection of personal property – Rights of access where personal belongings already packed and made available for collection – Urgent interdictory relief – Availability of alternative remedies.
|
11 October 2022 |
|
Failure to properly consider correctional supervision and a deficient report vitiated the sentence, requiring remittal for fresh sentencing.
Sentencing – Correctional supervision – s 276(1) – trial court must give proper consideration to correctional supervision and its possible conditions (house arrest, community service, district restriction). Sentencing – Adequacy of correctional supervision report – deficient or perfunctory reports may vitiate sentencing discretion. Sentencing – Serious violent offences – gravity and deterrence are relevant but do not absolve court from considering non-custodial options and the offender’s personal circumstances. Appeal – interference justified where trial court committed material irregularity in exercising sentencing jurisdiction.
|
5 October 2022 |
|
Unilateral cessation of consent‑order maintenance was wilful contempt; appeal and rescission/new‑evidence applications dismissed.
Family law – maintenance – enforcement of consent maintenance order – civil contempt proceedings – requisites: order, service/notice, non‑compliance, wilfulness and mala fides (Fakie test); consent order enforceability; rescission/new evidence applications under Rule 42 and s 19(b)/s 173 – inadmissible where evidence available earlier and no explanation; inability to pay defence – evidential burden on defaulter; appellate interference only for misdirection of fact.
|
4 October 2022 |
|
Arrest under s40(1)(b) was lawful; interest on delictual damages runs from judgment; cross-appeal dismissed.
Criminal Procedure Act s40(1)(b) – arrest without warrant – objective reasonable suspicion – exercise of discretion to arrest must not be arbitrary, irrational or mala fide and must be properly pleaded; continued detention – lawfulness assessed on pleaded grounds and factual evidence; delictual non-pecuniary damages assessed at date of judgment — interest runs from judgment (or a short period thereafter); appellate interference with trial court costs order limited to misdirection or absence of grounds.
|
4 October 2022 |
| September 2022 |
|
|
Cellphone, ballistic and similar-fact evidence proved conspiracy to steal rhino horn and unlawful firearm possession.
Environmental/criminal law – Rhino poaching and theft – statutory conspiracy to steal rhino horn. Evidence – Similar-fact evidence – admissibility of cellphone tower data, prior poaching incidents and ballistic linkage. Forensic evidence – Ballistics linking weapon to prior killings as circumstantial proof. Firearms law – Unlawful possession of a large-game rifle and ammunition; common purpose and associative liability.
|
30 September 2022 |
|
Writ and attachment set aside where attorneys acted without valid mandate; post-dated resolution invalid and punitive costs awarded.
Civil procedure – application to set aside writ of execution and notice of attachment – authority to act for company – validity of post-dated board resolution – intervention/joinder – punitive costs (attorney and client) for counsel acting without valid mandate.
|
27 September 2022 |
|
Appellants failed to prove exceptional circumstances for bail in Schedule 6 armed robbery; strong prima facie case and flight risk.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Schedule 6 offence – Armed robbery with aggravating circumstances – onus to prove exceptional circumstances (s. 60(11)) – considerations in s. 60(4)–(10) – strength of State case (video, vehicle tracking, confessions) – flight risk – appeal court’s review under s. 60(5).
|
27 September 2022 |
|
Plaintiff proved assault and arrest by police; State held vicariously liable for officers' conduct.
Delict — assault and unlawful arrest by police; assessment of credibility and probabilities; evidentiary weight of J88 and photographs; failure to call identified witness — adverse inference; vicarious liability of State for police employees where wrongful acts sufficiently linked to employment (Rabie; K; Bazley).
|
20 September 2022 |
|
Municipality held vicariously liable for employee’s negligent firearm discharge causing child’s injury.
Delict – vicarious liability – employee acting within course and scope or sufficiently close link to employer’s business; Negligence – discharge of firearm – foreseeability of ricochet and risk to nearby dwellings; Causation – factual and legal causation established; Employer’s statutory/administrative failures (alternative issues unnecessary once vicarious liability established).
|
20 September 2022 |
|
Court found RAF 90% liable; accepted plaintiff’s spinal and foot fractures and awarded R405,520 plus s17(4)(a) undertaking.
Road Accident Fund – liability and causation – whether collision caused fractures and spinal injuries – balance of probabilities. Effect of defendant’s failure to plead and to file expert reports – acceptance of plaintiff’s evidence. Application for postponement – requirements for full and frank disclosure and demonstration of good cause. Quantum – assessment of general damages for permanent impairment, chronic pain and loss of independence; application of previous awards for guidance. Section 17(4)(a) undertaking for future medical costs.
|
13 September 2022 |
|
Oral two-season farming contract began in late 2015; drought did not excuse performance and respondent may deduct farming and transport costs.
Contract — oral agreement for agricultural production — commencement and duration (two-season project) — vis major/supervening impossibility — requirements for impossibility — tacit terms and transport as production cost — deduction of farming expenses — alleged VAT obligation rejected.
|
13 September 2022 |
|
Defendant liable for unlawful assault by police; force beyond pepper spray unjustified, R100,000 awarded.
Police liability – assault by members – admissible use of force; onus on state to justify force; credibility and corroboration by independent witnesses; medical evidence of injuries; assessment of damages for contumelia and injury; costs where plaintiff abandoned part of claim.
|
6 September 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed; court found tender award unlawful and CIDB registration not mandatory for responsiveness.
Administrative law – review of tender award – PAJA s7(1) 180-day period; Procurement law – responsiveness v functionality – CIDB registration; Preferential procurement – misapplication of preference points renders award unlawful; Judicial review – remedy by setting aside award; Leave to appeal – test applied.
|
6 September 2022 |
|
|
1 September 2022 |
| August 2022 |
|
|
Urgent interdict to stop borrow‑pit operations dismissed for self-created urgency despite competing mining‑permit claims.
Civil procedure — Urgency — self-created urgency — applicant’s delay in launching urgent application disentitles modification of rules. Interim interdict — requirements — prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience — procedural non-compliance may justify non-suit. Mining law — competing claims to mining rights and MPRDA compliance raised but not decided where urgency lacking. Administrative action — review to follow (Part B) but interim relief refused on procedural grounds.
|
30 August 2022 |
|
Court set aside bail refusal where magistrate wrongly penalised accused's silence and failed to properly balance s60 bail factors.
Criminal procedure — Bail — Section 60 Criminal Procedure Act — interests of justice enquiry — balancing favourable and unfavourable factors, risk of evasion and interference with witnesses. Right to silence — accused cannot be penalised at bail stage for electing not to testify or disclose defence. Charge sheets — when prosecution seeks to invoke enhanced sentencing regimes (Schedule 5), this should ordinarily be communicated in the charge sheet to ensure fair trial rights. Appellate review — misdirection on facts or law in bail refusal permits substitution of a fresh order.
|
30 August 2022 |
|
Committal for contempt requires an ad factum praestandum order and proof of wilfulness; municipal manager’s contempt set aside.
Local government — Structural interdict and payment agreement — Distinction between orders ad pecuniam solvendam and ad factum praestandum — Committal for contempt requires ad factum praestandum order and proof of wilfulness and mala fides beyond reasonable doubt — Responsible municipal official may be subject to mandamus on pain of committal — Provincial administrator and financial recovery plan affect implementation and accountability.
|
26 August 2022 |
|
A contingency-fees agreement failing to specify the attorney’s normal fees is invalid and unenforceable.
Contingency fees agreements – statutory requirement to specify 'normal fees' – s 2(1)(b) Contingency Fees Act; Court’s supervisory role when settlement accepted under ss 4(1)–(2) Road Accident Fund Act; Strict compliance required to prevent abuse; Invalid agreement entitles attorney to attorney-and-own-client fees.
|
23 August 2022 |
|
Review of magistrate’s rulings on search evidence, witness recall and similar‑fact evidence dismissed.
Criminal procedure — Review of magistrate’s interlocutory rulings — Admissibility of search and seizure evidence — Section 22(b)(i),(ii) Criminal Procedure Act — Consent not jurisdictional prerequisite — Recall of State witness — Similar fact evidence — Prematurity of interlocutory challenge — Procedural deficiencies in record — Condonation for late affidavit and costs.
|
23 August 2022 |
|
Regulator failed to prove an attorney witnessed a forged surety; application to strike off dismissed, each party to pay own costs.
Legal profession – disciplinary proceedings – allegation that an attorney witnessed a deed of suretyship containing a forged principal’s signature – burden of proof on regulator to establish offending conduct on balance of probabilities – regulator’s investigatory duties – attorney’s duty of candour – when to refer for oral evidence – sanction (striking off v suspension).
|
10 August 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed; Plascon-Evans applies to rescission of final consent orders and no reasonable prospects of success were shown.
Civil procedure – Rescission of consent order – Whether Plascon-Evans rule applies where rescission seeks final alteration of settlement order. Finality of judgments – Consent orders and settlement agreements incorporated into orders. Mistake and iustus error – Burden and applicability in rescission of consent orders. Interests of justice – Requirements to grant rescission and lack of authority to expand ‘good cause’. Key authorities: Storti v Nugent; Slabbert v MEC; Gangat v Akoon; Moraitis Investments v Montic Dairy.
|
10 August 2022 |
|
Appeal against conviction and eight-year sentence for corruption by a public prosecutor dismissed; evidence and sentence upheld.
Criminal law – Corruption by public official – Acceptance of gratification to withdraw charges – Admissibility of sting/undercover evidence (s252A) – Entrapment where agreement pre-existed police involvement. Appeal against sentence – Appellate interference only for material misdirection or shockingly inappropriate sentence (S v Malgas). Sentencing considerations – seriousness of corruption, deterrence, offender’s personal circumstances and rehabilitation.
|
10 August 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed: proposed amendments would create unmanageable overlapping proceedings and lacked reasonable prospects.
• Civil procedure – amendment of pleadings – deletion of "conditional" from counter-application and supplementary affidavit; • Incorporation by reference – admissibility and propriety of incorporating extensive averments from prior affidavits; • Exercise of judicial discretion – Pearson & Hutton; Whittaker v Roos; whether amendment would produce unmanageable, overlapping proceedings; • Appealability – s17(1)(a) Superior Courts Act – requirement of reasonable prospect of success.
|
2 August 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal refused: proposed amendment would cause overlapping, unmanageable proceedings and discretion was properly exercised.
• Civil procedure – amendment of pleadings – incorporation by reference – limits on unqualified incorporation of extensive averments.
• Civil procedure – conditional counter-applications – scope and transformation into stand-alone applications.
• Civil procedure – joinder and overlapping proceedings – prejudice and unmanageability from parallel proceedings between same parties.
• Appellate procedure – leave to appeal under s 17(1)(a) Superior Courts Act – reasonable prospect of success; stricter test.
• Judicial discretion – exercise in granting or refusing amendments; necessity to prevent injustice or undue complication.
• Costs – order for two counsel not justified in complex but not exceptional litigation.
|
2 August 2022 |
|
A tacit contractual duty to account was implied; the trust bore the onus to prove repayment and the appeal was dismissed.
Contract – implied/tacit term – officious bystander / business efficacy tests – duty to account and debatement where purchaser pays seller’s creditors; Burden of proof – defendant who pleads repayment/discharge must prove it; Evidence – failure to call an available witness not automatically fatal; Pleading and proof – unpleaded oral agreement (novation/offset) inadmissible as it would ambush opponent.
|
2 August 2022 |
| July 2022 |
|
|
Minor attestation pronoun error not fatal; applicants penalised with attorney-and-client costs for dilatory last‑minute postponement.
Practice — Affidavits — Attestation errors (incorrect gender pronoun) — substantial compliance and judicial discretion to admit affidavit; Costs — postponement due to litigant’s dilatory conduct — attorney-and-client (punitive) costs for wasted costs occasioned by late postponement.
|
28 July 2022 |
|
Refusal of PAIA access must be justified by proving disclosure would be 'unreasonable'; TOPS permit records required disclosure.
Access to information – PAIA s34(1) – meaning of 'unreasonable disclosure' of third‑party personal information – IO must assess reasonableness; not an automatic bar. PAIA and POPIA reconciled – objections under POPIA must be reasonable. Environmental/public interest – TOPS permit applications for vulnerable species acquire a social dimension; limited expectation of privacy. Burden on state to justify refusal on balance of probabilities. Order to set aside refusal and disclose records.
|
26 July 2022 |
|
Forfeiture under POCA requires a sufficiently close, temporally proximate evidential link proving property is proceeds or an instrumentality of crime.
POCA (ss 38, 48–57, 50, 53) – forfeiture by default; instrumentality vs proceeds of unlawful activity; evidential and temporal link required; balance of probabilities standard; constitutional limits on forfeiture.
|
26 July 2022 |
| June 2022 |
|
|
A joint venturer must plead the factual and legal basis to enforce and accept repudiation; failure renders particulars vague and excepiable.
Contract law – joint venture as contracting party – whether a joint venturer may unilaterally accept repudiation and sue for damages without pleading basis for locus standi; Civil procedure – pleadings – Rule 18 requirement for clear, concise and particular material facts; Exception – vagueness and failure to disclose cause of action resulting in striking out with leave to amend; Co-creditors – distinction between joint and joint-and-several entitlement and need to plead basis for unilateral enforcement.
|
23 June 2022 |
|
Court ordered interim bilingual educator appointments and back-pay pending post-establishment review to protect learners' education.
Urgency; children's best interests and right to basic education; interim relief converting departmental undertakings into court orders; limits on court-ordered appointments where post-provision norms constrain permanent posts; remedial temporary appointments and retrospective pay pending review.
|
23 June 2022 |
|
An urgent interdict seeking the same relief as a set-down main application was struck off as an abuse of process for non-compliance with urgency rules.
Civil procedure – Urgent applications – interlocutory interdict – whether urgency established – compliance with Rule 6 required. Abuse of process – bringing separate urgent application to obtain same relief as pending main application – unjustly 'jumping the queue'. Relief struck off the roll with costs where applicant failed to show urgency and comply with urgency rules.
|
21 June 2022 |
|
State cannot preclude attachment of departmental PMG funds; variation of final medico‑legal judgments requires trial evidence; applicants’ relief dismissed.
• Public finance and execution – State Liability Act and Uniform Rule 45(8) – attachment of right to credit balance in PMG account is permissible; PMG not immune under s 226.
• Interim relief and stays – requirements for interim interdict; balance of convenience and prima facie right – applicants (state) failed.
• Finality of judgments – once‑and‑for‑all rule; variation of final orders substantive and requires trial evidence; development of common law for instalments possible but must be litigated.
• PFMA duties – accounting officer and treasury obligations to budget for known/contingent liabilities; potential financial misconduct and referral under s 86 PFMA.
|
21 June 2022 |
|
Court found intoxication and first‑offender status substantial and compelling to avoid life sentence for double rape of elderly victim.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act s 51(1) and Part I Schedule 2 – rape of an older person and multiple rapes engaging prescribed life sentence – whether rape involved grievous bodily harm – substantial and compelling circumstances – intoxication and first‑offender status as mitigation – concurrent sentences.
|
15 June 2022 |
|
Court set aside tender awards for unlawful disqualification and misapplication of the PPPFA, suspending relief 30 days to protect ongoing projects.
Administrative law – PAJA – commencement of 180‑day period; Municipal procurement – applicability of s62 MSA; Tender law – vagueness of tender requirements (CIDB proof) and responsiveness; Preferential procurement – PPPFA requires price to be included; Remedy – unlawful awards void ab initio but suspension permitted to protect public interest.
|
14 June 2022 |
|
Lis alibi pendens did not bar adjudication of undisputed contractual interest and costs after capital sums were paid.
Civil procedure – lis alibi pendens – elements proven but discretion to proceed may be exercised where justice and convenience so require Contract – entitlement to contractual interest on overdue payments; interest calculation undisputed Costs – bare denial insufficient to resist award of costs Constitutional right of access to courts (s 34) and balance of convenience relevant to exercise of discretion
|
10 June 2022 |
|
Vehicle and trailer were instrumentalities of stock theft but forfeiture was disproportionate because the incident was remote from POCA’s core objectives.
POCA – instrumentality of an offence – property must play a reasonably direct, functional role in commission of offence to qualify as instrumentality. Forfeiture – s50 – balance of probabilities required that property be instrumentality, but separate proportionality analysis under s25 Constitution is mandatory. Proportionality – applicant bears onus to show forfeiture advances POCA’s purpose of combating organised crime; ordinary crime remote from POCA’s core may render forfeiture disproportionate. Innocent owner/mitigating factors – owner’s livelihood and child’s best interests relevant to proportionality enquiry.
|
10 June 2022 |
|
Whether the contemnor has purged civil contempt, appropriate suspension of sentence, striking out offensive affidavit material and dismissing recusal.
Contempt of court — civil contempt; purging contempt by substantive compliance; coercive suspended sentence; balancing vindication of court authority and right to liberty; striking out offensive, irrelevant and racially‑tinged allegations in affidavits; recusal applications and the right to legal representation; attorney‑and‑client costs including two counsel.
|
7 June 2022 |
|
No timely application to be heard on costs; Biowatch and s32 NEMA did not excuse unsuccessful, speculative urgent environmental application.
Costs — reconsideration of costs order — Estate Garlick exception requires timely formal application to be heard on costs where costs not argued; mere correspondence insufficient. Procedural law — functus officio. Environmental law — Biowatch principle does not automatically preclude costs in interlocutory environmental applications; s 32(2) NEMA allows withholding costs where applicants acted reasonably. Leave to appeal — s 17 Superior Courts Act; no reasonable prospects or compelling reasons to appeal costs order.
|
7 June 2022 |
|
Court finds error in magistrate's classification of fraud charge, orders bail with conditions based on appellant’s personal circumstances.
Criminal Procedure – Bail application – classification of offence under the correct schedule – Onus of proof for bail – Consideration of personal circumstances in bail application.
|
7 June 2022 |
|
Attempted overreach by attorney via defective contingency-fee and excessive billing rendered him unfit to practise; suspended for two years.
Contingency-fee agreements — overreaching and excessive billing; professional misconduct — fitness to practise; suspension versus striking off; failure to comply with court directions; disparaging communications as aggravating factor; re-entry by substantive application.
|
7 June 2022 |
|
Whether respondent’s injuries were COIDA occupational injuries, excluding RAF liability and leaving the applicant liable.
COIDA – occupational injury – "arising out of and in the course of" employment; RAF Act ss 17, 19, 21 – substitution of Fund for identified wrongdoers; interplay between COIDA and RAF; concurrent wrongdoers and in solidum liability; s22(4) deeming and employer culpability.
|
7 June 2022 |
|
Claim dismissed as prescribed; plaintiff knew joint estate assets precluding misrepresentation and undue influence claims.
Family Law – Divorce Settlement – Misrepresentation and Undue Influence – Applicability of Prescription Act – Knowledge of Facts for Prescribing Debts.
|
7 June 2022 |
|
The court found a bare fraud charge was Schedule 1, the state failed to show s60(4) risks, and bail was granted with strict conditions.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Classification of offence on charge sheet – Simple allegation of fraud without particulars amounts to Schedule 1 offence. Right to fair trial – Accused must be informed of charge particulars prior to bail hearing; no trial by ambush. Bail – Onus – Where offence is Schedule 1, state must show interests of justice preclude release; state failed to do so where evidence was speculative. s 60(4) CPA – Grounds for refusing bail (danger to public, flight risk, intimidation, undermining justice, public order) require probative evidence, not conjecture. Bail conditions – Court may impose stringent conditions (deposit, residence, reporting, travel notifications, passport restriction).
|
7 June 2022 |
|
Rescission refused: applicants gave unreasonable explanations, lacked a bona fide defence, and non-receipt of s129 notices was not a defence.
Rescission of default summary judgment — requirements: reasonable explanation for default; bona fides; prima facie defence — non-receipt of s129 notices is not per se defence where notices properly dispatched — bare denials and unsupported payment claims insufficient — dismissals with costs on attorney-and-client scale.
|
3 June 2022 |
| May 2022 |
|
|
Default judgment rescinded under rule 31(2)(b) because defendant showed a bona fide defence under s17(1)(e) of the Rates Act.
Civil procedure – rescission of default judgment – distinction between rule 42(1)(a) (erroneously granted orders) and rule 31(2)(b) (good cause) – requirements for rescission under rule 31(2)(b): explanation for default, bona fides and bona fide defence with prospects of success. Municipal law – Municipal Property Rates Act s17(1)(e) – exclusion from rates of parts of national parks not developed or used for commercial, business, agricultural or residential purposes. Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act defence raised but not decided as unnecessary.
|
31 May 2022 |