|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2025 |
|
|
Condonation and leave to appeal refused for inordinate delay, lack of prospects, and absent locus standi.
Civil procedure — condonation for late filing — Melane/Grootboom factors; Leave to appeal — s 17 Superior Courts Act — reasonable prospects of success; Locus standi — effect of final liquidation on director's capacity; Costs — personal costs order (party-and-party).
|
29 December 2025 |
|
Assault and contravention of a protection order are distinct offences; convictions confirmed, count 3 remitted for sentencing.
Criminal law — duplication of convictions — assault and contravention of protection order arising from same incident — distinct offences with different elements; sentencing, not conviction, addresses double punishment risk.
|
19 December 2025 |
|
A duplicate theft conviction was set aside and the matter remitted for sentencing on the substantive housebreaking count.
Criminal law — Duplication of convictions — Splitting a single substantive offence into multiple counts — Special review under s 116(3) — Setting aside duplicated conviction and remitting for sentencing.
|
19 December 2025 |
|
Condonation for 21-day late statutory notice refused because prospects of success were lacking and state would be prejudiced.
Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act s 3(4) – condonation for late notice – conjunctive requirements: no prescription, good cause, no unreasonable prejudice – prospects of success relevant to good cause – malicious arrest, detention and prosecution claims – service on correct organ of state.
|
18 December 2025 |
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction and life sentence upheld after proper evaluation of evidence and sentencing discretion.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Evaluation of complainant’s credibility and need for caution – Corroboration by sibling and accused’s statement – Sentencing – Substantial and compelling circumstances under S v Malgas – Life imprisonment for rape of a minor by a parent.
|
18 December 2025 |
|
Hospital records and related documentation constituted substantial compliance with s 24, so the Fund's special pleas were dismissed.
Road Accident Fund Act s 24 – procedure for lodging claims – substantial compliance – medical report requirements (s 24(2)(a)) – hospital records as substantial compliance – s 24(5) objection within 60 days – special pleas of non‑compliance, prematurity and prescription dismissed.
|
17 December 2025 |
|
A notice of bar is irregular where the respondent’s attorney’s authority is disputed under rule 7(1) until court determination.
Procedure — Uniform Rules of Court — Rule 7(1): dispute of attorney’s authority — court must be satisfied of authority; filing power of attorney not automatically dispositive. Rule 30: irregular steps — notice of bar set aside. Rule 22(1): 20-day pleading period postponed until court determination of authority.
|
12 December 2025 |
|
Notice of bar served while attorney authority was disputed is irregular; court must be satisfied of authority before further steps.
Civil procedure — Uniform Rules of Court — Rule 7(1) — disputed authority of attorney — court must be satisfied of authority before attorney may act; production of power of attorney or interlocutory proceeding may be required. Civil procedure — Rule 30 — irregular steps — setting aside notice of bar served while authority disputed. Civil procedure — Rule 22(1) — time for plea/exception runs from day after court determines authority.
|
12 December 2025 |
|
Contempt application failed because the municipality’s non‑compliance was not proved willful or mala fide beyond reasonable doubt.
Civil contempt — consent order — requirements: existence, service, non‑compliance, willfulness and mala fides beyond reasonable doubt — Plascon‑Evans evidential approach — settlement as court order does not per se bar other remedies — practical impediments to performance (encumbrances, bond terms, costs) may raise reasonable doubt.
|
11 December 2025 |
|
Contempt not proved beyond reasonable doubt; maintenance and related disputes referred to the Maintenance Court, each party to bear own costs.
Maintenance orders – contempt of court – requirements of existence, service, disobedience, wilfulness and mala fides – Plascon‑Evans rule – financial incapacity and change of circumstances – referral to Maintenance Court under Maintenance Act – best interests of children and inappropriate use of High Court to resolve parental acrimony.
|
9 December 2025 |
|
Genuine factual disputes on existence and terms of an alleged partnership required referral to oral evidence; late reply condoned.
Civil procedure – motion proceedings vs action – material disputes of fact – Rule 6(5)(g) referral to oral evidence; Partnership law – requirements for (universal/ordinary) partnership between spouses married out of community; Admissibility of new evidence in reply – introduction of bank statement (annexure "ISA 08") and discretionary grant of leave to file further affidavit.
|
5 December 2025 |
|
Whether RAF breached judgment by failing to pay interest and taxed costs and whether contempt orders should be enforced.
Road Accident Fund — failure to pay interest and taxed costs under judgment — typographical/identity‑number error in pleadings — bona fide clerical mistake — contempt proceedings against CEO and execution of suspended sentence — rescission application to set aside prior orders — costs.
|
5 December 2025 |
|
Failure to appear on bail is a statutory offence under s67A requiring a formal charge and trial; summary inquiry impermissible.
Criminal Procedure Act s67A – failure to appear on bail – statutory offence – requirement for formal charge-sheet and full trial – summary inquiry impermissible – State to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
5 December 2025 |
|
Court applied a 10% post‑morbid contingency and awarded the plaintiff R283,756 for future loss of earnings.
Road Accident Fund – quantum – future loss of earnings – contingency deductions – admissibility of uncontested expert and actuarial evidence – court’s discretionary assessment based on claimant’s personal circumstances.
|
5 December 2025 |
|
The applicant was partly negligent; the respondent liable for 75% of proven damages.
Road traffic negligence – two-lane straight road – potholes causing oncoming heavy vehicle to veer across centre line – weight of witness estimates and photographs – duty of driver on correct side to take reasonable evasive action – sudden emergency principle considered – apportionment of damages 75/25 in favour of plaintiff.
|
3 December 2025 |
|
Court dismissed review of Master's withdrawal of s18(3) letters, directing Chief Master to review under s95.
Administration of Estates Act – section 18(3) small estates procedure – issuance and withdrawal of letters of authority; section 95 Chief Master's review as primary remedy; inapplicability of section 54 to section 18(3) representatives; duty to disclose assets and descendants; potential need for executor dative.
|
3 December 2025 |
| November 2025 |
|
|
Majority shareholder validly removed a co-director under s 71; court confirmed resolution and ordered bank to unfreeze account.
Companies Act s 71 – removal of director – notice and opportunity to be heard required; Motion procedure – supplementary affidavits require leave – Uniform Rule 6; Lis pendens and CIPC proceedings – record-keeping role of CIPC; Urgent relief to unfreeze company bank account.
|
28 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal granted on whether large‑scale money‑laundering proceeds may be restrained and confiscated under POCA.
Criminal procedure — Restraint orders under POCA — Whether extensive money‑laundering proceeds (c. R522m) are sufficiently related to charged offences (s 18(1)(c)) to be restrained/confiscated; presumption in s 22(3) POCA; interplay with business rescue and release of restrained property; leave to appeal to SCA.
|
28 November 2025 |
|
Applicant proved dangerous U‑turn but was 20% contributorily negligent; respondent liable for 80%.
Road Accident Fund Act s 24 — substantial compliance with RAF1 claim form — special pleas dismissed where respondent failed to place facta probantia or agree a stated case; Evidence — single witness inconsistencies and evaluation on probabilities; Delict — dangerous U‑turn as cause; contributory negligence and apportionment (80/20); costs (merits, inclusive of counsel on scale B).
|
27 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed—municipal council unlawfully terminated employment in breach of contract and natural justice.
Judicial review – leave to appeal refused – municipal council’s termination of senior manager unlawful and invalid for breach of employment contract and audi alteram partem; High Court jurisdiction for legality review not ousted by CCMA clause; procedural irregularities immaterial or correctable.
|
27 November 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove fitness for readmission, attacked a long-standing striking-off order; application dismissed with costs.
Readmission as attorney — onus to prove genuine, complete and permanent reformation — trust account mismanagement and outstanding AFF liabilities — attacking prior striking-off order after long delay — conduct in proceedings and lack of candour.
|
27 November 2025 |
|
Applicant’s proposed amendment refused because draft particulars were vague on instalments and interest, causing prejudice.
Civil procedure — Amendment of pleadings (Rule 28) — Judicial discretion and Moolman principles — Delay and trial‑related prejudice — Pleadings must comply with Rule 18: clear, concise and particular statement of material facts — Interest claims and alleged withdrawal of admissions — Rectification of contract schedules and annexures.
|
26 November 2025 |
|
Application to compel municipal invoice payment dismissed due to lis pendens and abuse of process; punitive costs awarded.
Administrative law – Mandamus under s 65(2)(e) MFMA – lis pendens – abuse of process for failing to disclose pending action – pending action between same parties and same cause bars subsequent proceedings.
|
25 November 2025 |
|
Applicants failed to show reasonable prospects of success against a summary judgment; leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – Leave to appeal – s 17(1)(a)(i) Superior Courts Act – test of reasonable prospects of success; Summary judgment – bona fide defence and triable issue; Affidavits – sufficiency of deponent’s personal knowledge; Corporate deponent may rely on company records; Rees v Investec Bank considered; Validity of section 129 notices.
|
25 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused: settlement order confined disputes to accounting issues and bars relitigation of the agreement’s legality.
Civil procedure — settlement agreement made an order of court — interpretation of settlement terms — scope limited to accounting/debatement disputes — settlement order estops relitigation of settled substantive claims; leave to appeal requires reasonable prospects of success.
|
24 November 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to show reasonable prospects or compelling reasons for leave to appeal urgency and costs orders.
Civil procedure – Leave to appeal – Section 17(1) Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 – requirement of reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons; urgency disputes – removal from urgent roll; costs – discretion of trial court and reluctance to interfere absent misdirection; reliance on Ramakatsa guidance.
|
24 November 2025 |
|
s319 reservation dismissed: proposed questions were factual, insufficiently particular, or would have no practical effect on acquittals.
Criminal procedure — s 319 CPA — reservation of questions of law — strict requirements: accurate framing, factual basis in record, practical effect on acquittal — distinction between law and fact — best evidence rule and admissibility of documents — adverse inferences and duty to call witnesses (s 186) — adequacy of reasons and findings (s 146A; s 34 Constitution).
|
21 November 2025 |
|
Negligent travel-claim error, not proven deliberate dishonesty, did not render applicant unfit to be admitted as a legal practitioner.
Admission to the roll — fitness to practise — dismissal for gross dishonesty arising from negligent travel-claim error — disclosure obligations — negligence versus deliberate dishonesty — remorse/admission of guilt not prerequisite where innocence maintained.
|
20 November 2025 |
|
A negligent, inadvertent travel-claim error did not amount to deliberate dishonesty and did not bar admission as a legal practitioner.
Admission as legal practitioner – fit and proper person inquiry – prior disciplinary dismissal for gross dishonesty – negligent error vs deliberate dishonesty – disclosure obligations and requirement to admit guilt/remorse – costs where respondent acts as custos morum.
|
20 November 2025 |
|
Renewed bail application failed: alleged new facts insufficient under s60(11)(b); appeal dismissed.
Criminal procedure — Bail — Renewed bail application based on alleged new facts — Meaning and limits of "new facts" — Section 60(11)(b) interests of justice — Evidence known but not previously presented — Appellate review of magistrate's discretion under s65(4).
|
20 November 2025 |
|
Condonation of late notice under Act 40 of 2002 granted; each party ordered to pay their own costs.
Condonation – Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 s 3(1) – unopposed condonation on merits – costs: punitive (attorney and client) costs not warranted; where delay adequately explained and no prejudice, each party often to pay own costs.
|
20 November 2025 |
|
Urgency refused and application struck from the roll because the applicant created its own urgency; costs awarded to the respondent.
Urgent application — self-created urgency — Rule 6(12) Uniform Rules — interim interdict to restrain municipal enforcement of by-law — pendente lite constitutional challenge.
|
19 November 2025 |
|
A PAJA review brought after 180 days without s9 condonation is incompetent and dismissed; estate ordered to pay costs.
Administrative law — PAJA s7 (180-day time limit) — PAJA s9 (extension/condonation) — inordinate delay — interest of justice — review application dismissed as time-barred.
|
17 November 2025 |
|
Court applies a 20% contingency deduction to future loss of earnings from a knee injury; RAF ordered to pay R824,200.
Damages — personal injury — assessment of future loss of earnings — contingency deduction — municipal employment context, occupational and industrial psychological evidence, knee injury prognosis — 20% contingency deduction applied; RAF liable for general and future loss; past medicals postponed.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
Court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed father’s urgent application for assessments and transfer of children’s primary residence.
Children’s Act s 29 – territorial limitation on jurisdiction; urgency in family matters – abuse of urgent process; parental responsibilities and rights – appointment of experts and Family Advocate; rule 43 pendente lite residence orders; costs — attorney and client scale including counsel.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
Plaintiff awarded R180,000 for unlawful arrest, detention and assault; defendant liable for loss and vehicle damage, quantum to be proven.
Delict — unlawful arrest and detention; assault by police; damages quantum for deprivation of liberty and assault; loss/damage to property in police custody; duty of care for seized property; Hazardous Substances Act — silver mercury not listed.
|
13 November 2025 |
|
The applicant’s leave to appeal is refused against an order declaring an adverse credit listing unlawful; no reasonable prospects of success.
Civil procedure — leave to appeal (s 17(1)(a) Superior Courts Act) — reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons required; Credit law — National Credit Act ss 70 and 72 — verification duties of credit bureaus and retention pending investigation; Authority — effect of Transunion Africa v Ngcenge; Procedural objections — alleged non-compliance/class-proceedings issues; Academic litigation.
|
13 November 2025 |
|
Rectification of contract for misdescribed party; sureties held liable for company’s arrears and future rentals.
Contract law — Rectification for common mistake where written agreement misdescribed contracting party; suretyship — sureties liable for present and future debts per continuing deed; civil procedure — late postponement applications require satisfactory explanation and may be refused.
|
10 November 2025 |
|
After settlement post-hearing, court exercised discretion and ordered each party to pay its own costs due to conduct.
Civil procedure — Costs after settlement — Exercise of judicial discretion — Conduct of parties — Uniform Rule 7 (authority to represent) — Rule 30 (irregular steps) — Further affidavits and Rule 6(5) — Inappropriate collateral challenge to administrative appointment.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Former director/shareholder holding a beneficial interest is entitled under s 26(1) to inspect and copy specified company records for 1995–2023.
Company law — access to company records — s 26(1) Companies Act — beneficial interest — interplay with PAIA and s 32 Constitution — transparency and motive irrelevant — misjoinder of directors in their capacities — production of MOI, financial statements, accounting records, minutes and securities register for specified period.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Court dismissed spoliation claim for lack of jurisdiction, locus standi and proof of possession; representative referred for investigation.
Civil procedure — mandament van spolie — possession and unlawful deprivation required; jurisdictional limits of provincial divisions; locus standi of self‑proclaimed traditional leaders and unnamed associations; unadmitted person acting as litigator; procedural non‑compliance for admission as amicus curiae; referral of possible professional and criminal misconduct for investigation.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove urgency and did not establish invalidity of the search warrant; application dismissed with costs.
Urgent applications — Uniform Rule 6(12) — requirement to set out circumstances rendering matter urgent; Search and seizure warrants — Criminal Procedure Act s21 read with s22 — authority to seize items not specifically listed; Overly broad warrants — scope defined by empowering provisions; Commissioners of oaths — Regulations 7(1) and exemption in 7(2) where interest arises from employment; Judicial discretion — deciding merits despite lack of urgency to avoid prejudice.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove urgency or misappropriation to justify interim suspension under section 43 LPA.
Legal Practice Act s43 – urgent interim suspension – requirements of urgency and proof of misappropriation or other serious misconduct; jurisdiction of High Court; interdicts as preventive remedies not remedies for historical misconduct; costs consequences of unwarranted urgent set-downs.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
A court may use rule 42(1)(b) to cure an omitted costs order despite functus officio; applicant's leave to appeal denied.
Functus officio – exceptions to finality; Rule 42(1)(b) Uniform Rules – curing omissions/ambiguities/patent errors; costs orders – supplementation of orders; leave to appeal – s17(1)(a)(i) reasonable prospects threshold; Firestone exceptions.
|
3 November 2025 |
| October 2025 |
|
|
University's four‑year suspension for procurement manipulation was contractual, rational, proportionate and not a PAJA administrative action.
Administrative law – whether suspension of a registered supplier by a university is 'administrative action' under PAJA – held contractual, not administrative. Procurement – deliberate manipulation of procurement (procured higher quotations from non‑registered supplier; invoice splitting) breaches implied terms and justifies suspension/termination. Review – decision was procedurally fair, rational and proportionate; remedy contractual.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Employer permitted interim interdict preventing a former employee’s pension payout pending civil claim, but relief refused as to another.
Pension Funds Act s 37D(1)(b) – purposive interpretation to permit withholding of pension benefits pending determination of member liability (Highveld Steel). Interim interdict – requirements: prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience, absence of alternative remedy. Employer seeking to protect public purse may interdict payment of pension benefits where strong prima facie case of theft/dishonesty exists. Insufficient evidence and prosecutorial decisions may negate the need to interdict benefits of co-accused. Costs – successful applicant entitled to costs, including wasted costs occasioned by postponement.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Unauthorised disclosure of HIV status is a privacy breach, not defamation; a defamation plea therefore failed.
Defamation – requirements: wrongful, intentional publication of defamatory statement concerning plaintiff – Le Roux v Dey. Privacy – unauthorised disclosure of HIV status is a breach of privacy/dignitas but not automatically defamatory – NM v Smith. Civil procedure – causes of action must be pleaded distinctly; defamation and privacy claims are independent. Pleading – animus iniuriandi must be pleaded for defamation; failure to do so is fatal if the statement is not defamatory.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Conviction for non‑consensual rape upheld, but s 51(1) life sentence overturned for lack of proof of victim’s age; sentence reduced to 12 years.
Criminal law – Rape – Proof of non‑consent corroborated by forensic and eyewitness evidence; Hearsay – victim’s stated age and J88 are hearsay requiring s 3(1) application; Mandatory minimum sentencing – s 51(1) life sentence cannot be imposed absent proof victim under 18 or accused’s knowledge; Substitution to s 51(2) and sentence reduction to 12 years.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Exception for vagueness dismissed where lease and material terms were sufficiently pleaded to disclose a cause of action.
• Civil procedure – Exception to particulars of claim – Rule 23(1), Rule 18(4) and Rule 18(6) – Vagueness and embarrassment – Sufficiency of particulars to disclose cause of action; annexure of written contract or part relied upon. • Contract – Written lease – interpretation and quantification disputes are for pleadings, discovery and trial, not exception. • Practice – Exception succeeds only if, on any reasonable interpretation, pleading discloses no cause of action.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
|
24 October 2025 |