Skip to document content
Skip to main menu
Skip to search
Judgments
National Legislation
Provincial Legislation
Municipal By-laws
Gazettes
Collections
Subscribe
About
Help
Home
Judgments
High Court of South Africa Eastern Cape, Port Elizabeth
High Court of South Africa Eastern Cape, Port Elizabeth - 2024 March
10 judgments
Advanced search
All years
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2019
2018
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
1972
All years
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2019
2018
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
1972
All months
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
All months
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Filters
Filters
Judges
Bands J
Beshe J
Botha AJ
Eksteen J
Gqamana J
Makaula ADJP
Outcomes
Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs
Alphabet
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
Sort by:
Title (A - Z)
Title (Z - A)
Date (Newest first)
Date (Oldest first)
Filter
10 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
March 2024
J S N v T H N (2229/2017) [2024] ZAECPEHC 84 (26 March 2024)
The court found that the parties' marriage was valid under customary law, not affected by civil marriage intentions.
Family law – Customary marriage – Validity of marriage under Recognition of Customary Marriages Act – Requirement of mutual consent.
26 March 2024
Caga and Others v Transnet Soc Ltd and Another (1257/2021) [2024] ZAECPEHC 25 (22 March 2024)
Court ordered disclosure of forensic report under PAIA, finding respondent failed to prove confidentiality or private-body status.
Promotion of Access to Information Act – application for forensic report – whether record excluded by s7 where related proceedings concluded; Public v private body – whether State-owned company acted as public or private body when commissioning internal forensic report; PAIA thresholds – s11 (public body) v s50 (private body) and onus on requester; Grounds of refusal – mandatory breach-of-confidence exemption (s37/s65) requires evidentiary proof beyond mere confidentiality clause; Section 80(1) – judicial peek discretionary and unnecessary where holder fails to discharge onus.
22 March 2024
C R v T N ; In re: T N v C R (4327/2016) [2024] ZAECPEHC 22 (19 March 2024)
High Court appointed an independent curator ad litem and postponed parental-rights application pending best-interest reports.
Children’s Act – appointment of curator ad litem – investigation of best interests – Family Advocate to assist and report – overlap with Children’s Court appointment – postponement sine die; parties granted leave to supplement affidavits.
19 March 2024
Louw v Carter and Others (1890/2021) [2024] ZAECPEHC 21 (19 March 2024)
Applicant failed to exhaust PAJA internal remedies and did not bring a timely review; application dismissed with costs.
Administrative law; PAJA s7(1)–(2) — duty to exhaust internal remedies; leave to appeal under FAIS; unreasonable delay and condonation; no exceptional circumstances for exemption; review and execution challenged but dismissed.
19 March 2024
Mandela Bay Development Agency and Others v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (3619/2023) [2024] ZAECPEHC 24 (19 March 2024)
Board not lawfully removed; court orders immediate payment under Service Delivery Agreement and confirms directors’ locus standi.
Municipal entities – removal of directors; interplay between Systems Act s 93G and Companies Act s 71; contractual default under Service Delivery Agreement; arbitration clause and court jurisdiction; joinder and necessary parties; urgency and locus standi.
19 March 2024
Mpuntshe v Road Accident Fund (3202/2021) [2024] ZAECPEHC 23 (18 March 2024)
Court awarded damages for past and future income loss after accepting expert evidence and applying contingency deductions including reduced life expectancy.
Road Accident Fund – catastrophic amputation – assessment of past loss of income and future loss of earning capacity; reliance on admitted expert reports and actuarial certificate; pre-morbid earnings as basis for actuarial calculation; contingency deductions including diminished life expectancy; separation of past medical expenses (Rule 33(4)); costs including two counsel.
18 March 2024
S v Wentzel and Another (CC 23/2021) [2024] ZAECPEHC 19 (7 March 2024)
Accused convicted of murder, attempted murder and firearm possession; POCA and certain counts not proven.
Criminal law – identification evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt; alibi disclosed late – probative weight and adverse inferences; common purpose liability where co‑accused present, armed and associated with conduct; POCA ss 9(1)(a) and 9(2)(a) require subjective intent to promote a pattern of gang activity; duplication of firearm possession counts and failure of s220 admissions to establish a count.
7 March 2024
S v Wentzel and Another (CC 23/2021) [2024] ZAECPEHC 44 (7 March 2024)
Credible identification and rejected alibis supported convictions for murder, attempted murder and firearm offences; POCA charges not proven.
Criminal law – identification evidence – factors: lighting, proximity, prior knowledge, corroboration, inspection in loco, and identification parade Alibi – late-raised alibi may be rejected if unsupported, inconsistent or contradicted; weighs on credibility. Common purpose – presence, awareness, intent/foresight and active association can attract liability for co-accused. POCA (ss 9(1)(a), 9(2)(a)) – requires proof of subjective intention to promote or contribute to a pattern of gang criminality Duplication – continuous possession may render separate counts duplicative
7 March 2024
Moyo v Road Accident Fund and Another (3719/2020) [2024] ZAECPEHC 18 (5 March 2024)
Applicant misdirected remedy: must execute consent money judgment against the RAF; no basis to order personal relief against branch manager.
Civil procedure — execution of money judgment — consent judgment binding; remedy is execution not personal interdicts against officials; statutory body (RAF) liable under judgment — no personal liability without pleaded delegation of payment authority; Road Accident Fund Act s 17(4)(a) undertaking; post-judgment administrative inquiries criticised.
5 March 2024
Papu v Government Employees Pension Fund (3676/2021) [2024] ZAECPEHC 20 (5 March 2024)
Respondent’s failure to investigate contradictory records rendered its pension-calculation decision unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair.
Administrative law – PAJA – procedural fairness – duty to investigate and reconcile employer records before determining pension benefits. Pension law – Government Employees Pension Fund – reliance on employer-submitted form Z102 – obligation to ensure correct pensionable service dates. Judicial review – failure to correct records that materially affect vested pension rights constitutes unlawful and unreasonable administrative action Costs – attorney-and-client costs awarded where respondent’s defences consistently disfavoured by prior decisions in the division
5 March 2024
1
>