|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2022 |
|
|
A mortgaged primary residence may be declared executable where debtor cannot show alternative means or disproportionate rights infringement.
* Civil procedure – Uniform Court Rule 46A – declaration of primary residence executable where mortgage bond and arrears exist; proportionality test and constitutional rights to property and housing. * Execution against mortgage security – efficacy and public confidence; refusal only where gross disproportionate infringement shown. * Suspension of execution – discretionary relief requires credible prospect of payment within reasonable time.
|
27 September 2022 |
|
Applicants lacked possession or clear right; interdict to prevent demolition or compel rebuilding was refused.
* Civil procedure – interim and final interdicts – requirements: prima facie/clear right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience. * Property – state land – occupation of vacant state land; absence of allocation or lawful possession. * Spoliation – mandament van spolie requires proof of prior peaceful and undisturbed possession. * Evidence – contemporaneous photographs can disprove asserted demolition or existence of structures. * PIE inapplicable where occupiers do not live on the land and are not in possession.
|
27 September 2022 |
|
Defendant liable for 105 days' unlawful detention; R500,000 awarded in general damages.
Unlawful arrest and detention – police liability for post-appearance detention – legal causation in remand cases – assessment of general damages for prolonged unlawful detention (105 days).
|
27 September 2022 |
|
The defendant unlawfully arrested, detained and shot the plaintiff; the State failed to justify the arrest or use of lethal force.
Police liability; unlawful arrest and detention — section 40(1) CPA — Schedule 1 jurisdictional requirement; use of force/private defence — necessity and proportionality; onus of proof on State; judgment at close of defendant’s case where defendant bears onus.
|
8 September 2022 |
|
A single breach can justify applying to operationalise a suspended sentence, but doing so prematurely risks unfair prejudice and must await finality.
Criminal procedure – Operationalisation of suspended sentence – Single breach suffices in principle, but application premature if subsequent conviction/sentence or appeal/review not finalised; proper procedure is to apply in the original suspended-sentence case after relevant milestones (S v Hoffman).
|
8 September 2022 |
|
Court found arrest, detention, assault and defamation by police unlawful; awarded R240,000 plus costs.
Police liability – unlawful arrest and detention – s 40(1)(b) CPA – credibility assessment of witnesses – assault supported by medical report – defamation and contumelia – quantum of damages.
|
4 September 2022 |
|
Applicant granted leave to amend particulars correcting location and commanding officer; amendment caused no prejudice or new cause of action.
* Civil procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Rule 28 – Delay in seeking amendment – prejudice must be shown – mala fides required to refuse.
* Pleadings – Facta probanda – amendment of non-essential particulars (place and identity of commanding officer) does not introduce new cause of action.
* Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act – alleged conflict with statutory notice held without merit where facts corrected do not alter cause of action.
* Prescription – amendment does not revive or create a new prescribed claim where essential cause remains unchanged.
|
1 September 2022 |
|
Application to review removal as headman dismissed due to res judicata and non‑compliance with PAJA time limits.
Administrative law – review – res judicata – prior dismissal of proceedings challenging same administrative decision precludes relitigation; PAJA – time limits – review launched outside 180‑day period without condonation; procedural fairness claims not addressed where preliminary objections dispose of matter.
|
1 September 2022 |
|
Review of headman removal dismissed for res judicata and failure to comply with PAJA time limits.
Administrative law – review of administrative decision – res judicata applies where identical decision previously challenged and dismissed; PAJA s.7 – 180‑day prescription; condonation requires adequate explanation for delay; merits of customary leadership claim not adjudicated.
|
1 September 2022 |
|
Refusal of bail upheld: appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances against a strong state case and risk to public peace.
Bail – s 60(4), s 60(11) and s 65 Criminal Procedure Act – exceptional circumstances – strength of state case assessed by circumstantial evidence – risk of disturbance to public peace – appellate de novo review restricted to evidence before court a quo.
|
1 September 2022 |