|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2013 |
|
|
Reported
Victims may intervene in POCA s26(6) proceedings; applicant failed s26(6) disclosure and inability-to-pay tests, so funds not released.
POCA s26(6) — High Court has discretion to permit intervention by victims (not confined to creditors) Intervention — prima facie sufficient interest, school governing body may litigate to protect school’s interests s26(6) preconditions — full disclosure under oath of all interests in restrained property; inability to meet expenses from unrestrained property Failure to disclose origin/nature of restrained funds and insufficient evidence of financial inability bars release of funds Application dismissed; costs awarded to respondents
|
19 September 2013 |
| August 2013 |
|
|
Late request for reasons and appeal rendered urgent interdict irregular; application dismissed and costs awarded on attorney-and-client scale.
Civil procedure – appeals from Magistrate’s Court – Rule 51(1) request for reasons – requirement to request within 10 days or seek extension under Rule 60(5) – irregular late notice of appeal – self-created urgency – interdict refused – punitive costs order (attorney-and-client).
|
8 August 2013 |
| July 2013 |
|
|
Reported
Mandament van spolie granted; respondent’s vague claim of agreement rejected and PIE held inapplicable as house was not her 'home'.
Mandament van spolie – possession and dispossession; dispute of fact in motion proceedings (Plascon‑Evans/Wightman); PIE applicability – statutory eviction protects ‘homes’ with habitual/permanent occupation; mandament available between spouses.
|
9 July 2013 |
|
Whether detention under s 34 Immigration Act was lawful after asylum refusals and whether police/prison cells qualify as places of detention.
Immigration law – s 34(1) Immigration Act – arrest, detention and deportation of illegal foreigners – scope and meaning of "manner and at a place determined by the Director‑General" – prisons and police cells permissible places of detention. Refugee/Asylum – temporary asylum‑seeker permits lapse on final rejection of asylum application; applicants become illegal foreigners liable for deportation. Detention standards – conditions that amount to denial of fundamental personality rights may render detention unlawful; factual findings required. Procedural rights – communication of rights "when possible, practicable and available" in a language understood; interpreters’ credibility assessed. Administrative discretion – immigration officers retain and must exercise discretion before arresting for deportation.
|
9 July 2013 |
| June 2013 |
|
|
Applicant proved respondents wilfully breached a restraint order; suspended sentence activated, fines and suspended sentences imposed.
Contempt of court – motion proceedings – need to prove terms of order, knowledge thereof and contravention beyond reasonable doubt. Restraint of trade – enforcement – trading under different name or alleged change of control does not evade restraint order. Evidence – uncontested affidavits, documentary evidence and prior contempt finding justify activation of suspended sentence. Remedies – activation of suspended sentence, additional suspended imprisonment, fines and punitive costs (attorney-and-client).
|
18 June 2013 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove common intention for rectification; defendant succeeded on counterclaim for defective dam workmanship.
Contract — Rectification — Onus on party seeking rectification to prove common intention/mistake on balance of probabilities; contemporaneous correspondence critical. Contract — Performance — failure to prove compliance with written specifications (capacity and SABS standards) bars claim. Delict/contract remedial claim — defective workmanship: expert report accepted; damages awarded for repair costs. Costs — successful defendant awarded costs, expert and inspection costs, with interest.
|
11 June 2013 |
|
The applicant suffered common assault and an unlawful, ulterior-motivated arrest by a police officer; damages and costs awarded.
Criminal procedure – arrest without warrant – legality – arrest effected for improper/ulterior purpose – onus on state to justify arrest.* Police misconduct – use of force and common assault – infringement of bodily integrity.* Evidence – credibility of witnesses, contemporaneous investigating officer’s statement outweighing later inconsistent testimony.* Remedies – damages for assault and unlawful arrest; interest and costs on High Court scale.
|
4 June 2013 |
| April 2013 |
|
|
Reported
Court corrected a patent date error in its order to reflect the universal partnership’s true commencement year without altering the judgment.
Practice — correction of judgments and orders — patent clerical/typographical errors; Rule 42(1)(b); tenore substantiae perseverante — court may correct wording to give effect to true intention. Family/Common‑law partnerships — universal partnership (societas omnium bonorum) — includes all present and future property (Hi‑Tech business included).
|
23 April 2013 |
| February 2013 |
|
|
Reported
|
14 February 2013 |
|
Applicant’s recusal and special‑entry claims based on hearsay and alleged conflict dismissed as contrived.
Criminal procedure – recusal – apprehended bias – objective test requiring reasonable apprehension by an informed, fair‑minded person – hearsay allegations insufficient. Criminal procedure – s 317(2) application for special entry – alleged conflict of interest and denial of cross‑examination – must be supported by record and credible evidence. Evidence – hearsay and late affidavits – not admitted where opportunistic, untested and aimed at delaying trial.
|
4 February 2013 |