|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| May 2022 |
|
|
Respondent’s warrantless arrest lacked reasonable grounds; applicant awarded damages for unlawful arrest and detention.
Criminal procedure – Arrest without warrant (s 40(1)(b)) – Objective test of reasonable suspicion – Reliability of identification evidence – Unlawful detention after first appearance – Damages for unlawful arrest, detention and contumelia.
|
31 May 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to establish a clear right to justify a final interdict preventing entry or removal from the marital home.
Interdict – Final interdict requirements – clear right, apprehended injury, absence of alternative remedy; locus standi in relation to marital home; Rule Nisi – lapse not decided; costs following the event.
|
17 May 2022 |
|
Alleged promotion is an unfair labour practice; remedy must be sought under the LRA, not by declaratory relief.
* Labour law – unfair labour practice – promotion dispute – jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act (s186(2)(a)); * Municipal employment – promotion and appointment prescripts; * Declaratory relief – absence of contractual cause of action and failure to prove valid promotion; * LRA remedy for LRA breach (Steenkamp principle).
|
17 May 2022 |
|
Condonation for late statutory notice denied where applicant had knowledge of the claim and delay was unexplained.
* Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 s3 – requirement to give written notice within six months of knowledge of facts giving rise to debt; condonation under s3(4)(b). * Knowledge of cause of action – material facts (not legal conclusions) sufficient to start the notice period. * Condonation – necessity of full explanation for entire delay, prospects of success and absence of unreasonable prejudice. * Prescription – distinct from notice requirement; non‑extinction of debt does not obviate need to show good cause.
|
17 May 2022 |
|
Reported
Court dismissed appeal, holding internal Framework Act processes did not bar urgent declaratory and interdictory relief.
Traditional leadership – recognition of kingship – Framework Act (ss 9, 21, 25) – whether internal customary processes must be exhausted before court relief – Oudekraal principle and administrative acts – requisites for final interdict – urgency and costs (Biowatch principle).
|
6 May 2022 |
|
An interim rule nisi is not suspended by appeal; respondent must comply but was not immediately found in contempt due to reliance on legal advice.
* Civil contempt – elements: order, service/knowledge, non-compliance; presumption of wilfulness and mala fides – evidentiary burden on alleged contemnor. * Superior Courts Act s 18 – distinction between a ‘decision’ (final in effect) and interim/interlocutory orders; interim rule nisi not suspended pending appeal. * Urgency – contempt proceedings generally urgent but applicants must justify truncation of rule periods. * Costs – ordinary party-and-party costs appropriate where non-compliance may have stemmed from counsel’s erroneous advice. * Citation – Minister of Justice not a necessary party to civil contempt proceedings.
|
3 May 2022 |