|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2025 |
|
|
Alleging a body corporate was "duly represented" is not excipiable; statutory compliance and authority disputes belong in pleadings or trial.
Pleadings — Exception — vagueness and embarrassment; allegation that a body corporate was "duly represented" sufficient to plead authority; Sectional Titles Management Act s4(e) and Management Rules r10(1)(b) — compliance and authority issues are matters for pleading/trial, not for exception; substantial compliance; costs taxed on C scale.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Respondent ordered to pay 80% of applicant's past medical expenses; postponement and unpleaded subrogation defence refused.
Road Accident Fund – liability for past and future hospital and medical expenses – effect of medical aid payments and subrogation. Pleading requirements – bare denial insufficient to rely on subrogation or deductibility; need to plead material facts. Procedure – postponement applications must be substantive when opposed; prejudice and delay weigh against postponement. Section 17(4) undertaking – arises where liability and general damages are settled. Stare decisis – Full Bench decisions must be factually on all fours before a single judge is compelled to follow them.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Applicant in a quasi‑partnership entitled to urgent interim interdict preserving assets and access to financial records pending litigation.
• Quasi‑partnership and nominee shareholding — fiduciary duties and entitlement to oversight despite corporate form;
• Interim interdict — requirements: prima facie right, reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, balance of convenience, absence of adequate alternative remedy;
• Urgency — preservation of assets and imminent disposal justify departure from ordinary roll;
• Non‑joinder — companies not indispensable where dispute is inter se partners and relief targets controlling minds;
• Costs — costs, including two counsel, awarded to successful urgent applicant on Scale C.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal granted where respondent demonstrated reasonable prospects of success against a contempt finding.
Leave to appeal – s 17(1)(a)(i) Superior Courts Act – higher, more stringent threshold – reasonable prospects of success; contempt of court – attribution of communications, wilfulness and mala fides, urgency and clarity of order; Uniform Rule 7(1) – suspension of trustees does not necessarily oust residual authority to litigate.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Reserved urgent-court costs can be awarded post-judgment; counsel’s omission may justify parties bearing their own costs.
Civil procedure – costs – reserved costs from urgent proceedings – reserved costs are separate and may be supplemented after judgment where omitted. Civil procedure – functus officio – court not functus officio where consequential matters (e.g. reserved costs) were not provided for due to bona fide omission. Costs – general rule that successful party is awarded costs; discretion to depart where conduct or omission occasioned unnecessary litigation. Costs – application removed from unopposed roll: parties ordered to pay own costs where counsel’s omission led to additional litigation.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed: inconsistent, unsigned educational‑psychology reports lacked foundation to show reasonable prospects of success.
Leave to appeal – requirements of s 17(1)(a) Superior Courts Act and Ramakatsa – expert evidence – admissibility and reliability of supplemental expert reports served under Rule 36(9) without Rule 38(2) affidavits – Bee v RAF criteria for expert opinion – causation between orthopaedic injury and alleged diminution in educational potential – 'sleeper effect' requires appropriate expert foundation.
|
30 October 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal granted where judgment inadequately established common purpose, admissions, and justification for life sentence.
Criminal law – adequacy of trial judge's written judgment – convictions must be supported by factual findings excluding reasonable possibility of innocence. Criminal law – doctrine of common purpose – must be clearly established and linked to accused's conduct. Evidence – admissibility and role of confession statements – necessity to explain their effect on conviction. Sentencing – necessity of findings on degree of participation to justify life imprisonment. Leave to appeal – granted to Full Court where convictions and sentences appear unsafe.
|
30 October 2025 |
|
Appeal dismissed: father’s rape conviction and life sentence upheld; complainant credible, no substantial and compelling circumstances.
Sexual offences – rape by parent – single‑witness evidence and corroboration – delay in reporting – medical evidence – non‑production of audio/DNA not necessarily fatal – prescribed minimum life sentence – substantial and compelling circumstances absent.
|
30 October 2025 |
|
Applicants failed to establish a prima facie right or balance of convenience for an urgent interdict preventing franchise termination.
Interim relief – interlocutory interdict – urgent relief requires prima facie right, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience; lack of full disclosure undermines urgency. Contract law – franchise agreements – termination and notices of default; courts should not grant overly broad relief when other contractual termination grounds may exist. Mootness – withdrawal of foundational notice of default can render injunctive relief moot. Public interest – food/public safety and reputation considerations relevant to balance of convenience.
|
30 October 2025 |
|
A strong prosecution case alone cannot deny bail; release ordered with stringent digital and reporting conditions.
Bail — whether detention justified where state has strong prima facie case; strength of case not determinative. Bail — POCA/schedule classification and s60(11)(b) onus — applicability and proof required. Bail — flight risk and digital risk (crypto wallets): speculative risk insufficient; conditions can mitigate. Bail conditions — digital lockdown, surrender of internet-capable devices, monitoring, cooperation with forensic analysis, no contact with witnesses or co-accused. Procedural — appellate interference where lower court conflated roles of co-accused.
|
30 October 2025 |
|
Set-off operates despite a s163 preservation order because the curator bonis acts in a representative capacity.
Set-off — mutuality of debts — curator bonis under s163 Tax Administration Act — vesting confers custody/control not ownership — curator acts nomine officii — preservation order does not oust operation of set-off.
|
30 October 2025 |
|
A valuation appeal board validly re-categorised sectional-title units as residential; municipal valuer lacked standing; review dismissed with punitive costs.
Administrative law – PAJA review – locus standi of organ of state to review another organ of state; valuer’s lack of locus standi. Valuation law – valuation appeal board powers under s 57 MPRA – de novo appeals and legal interpretation. Rates law – interpretation and application of s 8 MPRA (old and amended) and limits on 'highest and best permitted use'. COGTA circular – non-binding guidance only. Procedural – costs; punitive costs where applicant conduct unreasonable.
|
29 October 2025 |
|
Application for return of documents and prior restraints on expression dismissed for lack of specific evidence and necessity.
Civil procedure – interlocutory relief – proprietary recovery: applicant must prove possession and legal obligation to return documents; prior restraint on expression/association requires necessity and inadequacy of damages; injunctive relief against harassment/threats requires specification of underlying conduct.
|
29 October 2025 |
|
A last‑minute notice of intention to defend filed on the trial date constituted an abuse of process and was set aside.
Procedure – Default judgment – Late notice of intention to defend – Rule 19(1) and Rule 27 – condonation required for out‑of‑time steps; Abuse of process – last‑minute notices aimed at derailing default proceedings; Audi alteram partem – balanced against rules of court and finality; Affidavits – factual averments vs legal argument; Costs – attorney and client where abuse established.
|
29 October 2025 |
|
Default eviction order rescinded where notice was served on a suspended attorney; applicants given leave to file answering affidavits.
Civil procedure – Rescission of default judgment under Uniform Rule 42(1)(a); judgment erroneously granted where notice served on suspended attorney; procedural defect vitiates default eviction order; leave to file answering affidavit; costs — no order where all parties contributed to unnecessary costs.
|
29 October 2025 |
|
Non‑compliance with a Rule 35(3) notice and court order justified striking out the respondents’ defence.
Civil procedure – discovery – Rule 35(3) notice and Rule 35(7) sanctions – unsigned or late-signed discovery affidavit insufficient – deponent must state identity, capacity and personal knowledge – rescission required if order wrongly granted – striking out defence as appropriate sanction for non‑compliance by organ of state.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Failure to comply with a Rule 35(3) notice and court order justified striking out the respondents’ defence; unsigned or late affidavits insufficient.
Civil procedure — discovery — Uniform Rules 35(3) and 35(7) — adequacy of discovery affidavits — requirement to state deponent’s capacity and personal knowledge — unsigned affidavit lacks probative value — late compliance after order insufficient — sanction of striking out defence appropriate where an organ of state wilfully fails to comply.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
State liable for unlawful 480‑day detention; failure to apply for bail did not absolve state; malicious prosecution claim dismissed.
Police liability – unlawful further detention – onus on state to justify detention (s12(1)) – failure to investigate/remand without just cause – failure to apply for bail not breaking causation; Malicious prosecution – requirement of lack of reasonable cause and animus iniuriandi; Quantum – compensation for prolonged unlawful detention.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Prescription issue separable under Rule 33(4); locus standi and related merits not separable and dismissed additional separations.
Civil procedure – Uniform Rule 33(4) – separation of issues – when convenient and proper to decide an issue separately. Prescription – whether running of prescription postponed by business rescue/curatorship under s 3(1) Prescription Act. Locus standi – cession of claim subject to contractual prohibition on alienation without prior consent – factual disputes and evidentiary necessity precluding separation. Public policy/unconscionability – respondent’s plea to strike down cession-prohibiting clauses based on unfairness/Ubuntu not suitable for pre-trial separation.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Applicant's acceptance of respondent's "full and final settlement" extinguished remaining claims and barred amendment.
• Civil procedure – offers of compromise – "full and final settlement" – acceptance creates binding compromise extinguishing further claims.
• Contract/settlement law – intention to finalise (animus compromittendi) – use of "full and final settlement" and conduct (provision of trust details, retention of funds) as objective indicia.
• Payment in compromise vs payment of admitted liability – distinction and legal consequences.
• Amendment of pleadings – amendment barred where underlying claim has been finally settled.
• Court orders – obligation to quantify "proven damages" before compelling compliance with prior order.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Appellate court upholds visual identification and 15-year minimum sentence; no misdirection found, appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Robbery with aggravating circumstances – visual identification – reliability despite no identification parade – factors: proximity, lighting, duration, corroboration. Criminal procedure – Appellate review – limited interference with trial court’s factual findings absent misdirection (S v Francis). Sentencing – Minimum sentences (s51(2) Criminal Law Amendment Act) – discretion properly exercised; absence of substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Respondent ordered to continue property payments and contribute R400,000 toward applicant’s legal costs; no additional interim maintenance.
Family law — Rule 43 interim relief — spousal maintenance pendente lite — applicant’s ability to self-support — contribution to legal costs to secure equality of arms — joint responsibility for property-related expenses — refusal of forensic-audit costs for lack of substantiation.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused: regulator’s decision created applicant’s prima facie right to licence release; third parties cannot backdoor-review administrative decisions.
Administrative law – mandamus to compel release of licence – prima facie right based on regulator’s decision and correspondence – Oudekraal principle prevents revisiting administrative decision absent review; Appealability – leave to appeal under s 17(1)(a) Superior Courts Act – reasonable prospects of success required; s 18 Superior Courts Act application for suspension – misuse to effect backdoor review; Costs – costs awarded including two counsel.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Whether the applicant’s internal disclosures were protected and whether the respondent unlawfully subjected her to occupational detriment and reputational harm.
Protected Disclosures Act – internal disclosures to employer – when internal emails constitute "protected disclosure"; occupational detriment – disciplinary action as retaliation; actio injuriarum – impairment of dignity and reputation; evidence – assessment of psychiatric injury and proof of quantum.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Urgent interim interdict granted restraining respondents from using a dossier to extort or defame the applicant pending final relief.
Interdict — urgent interim relief to prevent extortionate and reputationally damaging disclosures; protection of reputation and commercial interests; limitations of whistleblower protections where no evidence of protected disclosure; balance between right to report to authorities and protection against extortion/defamation.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Summary judgment granted: CPA-based complaints against the supplier do not constitute a bona fide defence to the credit provider’s claim.
Credit agreements – summary judgment – bona fide defence; Consumer Protection Act claims against supplier versus credit provider; instalment sale agreement excluding warranties; lawful return of goods under CPA requires cession or bank action; NCA s129 notice compliance.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Non‑compliance with PIE s 4(2) is not fatal where the occupier had actual notice, legal representation and suffered no prejudice.
PIE s 4(2) – written notice requirement – substantial compliance and achievement of statutory object may cure formal non‑compliance. PIE – balancing of interests – occupier’s means, legal representation and risk of homelessness relevant to just and equitable inquiry. Civil procedure – raising points mero motu – court obliged to address apparent points of law but substantive fairness may outweigh procedural defects. Eviction on private land – owner’s property rights and deceased‑estate context relevant to relief and costs.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
An appellate court upheld a non‑minimum sentence because the trial court properly considered the appellant’s existing 15‑year sentence.
Sentencing — discretionary nature of punishment and limited scope of appellate interference; Minimum sentencing legislation — statutory minima and deviation where appropriate; Consideration of already‑serving sentences as factor in deviation; Aggravating factors and prior convictions supporting severe sentence; Appellate review — no misdirection or shockingly inappropriate sentence found.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
A plaintiff's attempt to strike out a defendant's exception instead of seeking leave to amend is an abuse of process.
Civil procedure – Exception to pleadings – Amendment of pleadings – Proper remedy is an application for leave to amend – Application to strike out exception held to be abuse of process.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Misdirection on applicable bail schedule was fatal but re-evaluation under correct test still justified refusal of bail.
Bail — applicable schedule — presiding officer’s duty to rule on schedule; misdirection of law by applying wrong schedule; onus under s60(11)(b) to prove interests of justice; flight risk, potential witness interference and danger to community as grounds for refusal; appellate re-evaluation may substitute lower court decision.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Whether a municipal sewerage subsidy applies to qualifying multi-dwelling units absent a further limitation requiring government housing grants.
Municipal law; tariff interpretation under Endumeni; PAJA reviewability of municipal administrative decisions; MFMA public participation and budget amendment requirements; unlawful unilateral limitation of budgeted subsidy.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
A tactical, belated notice to defend filed without condonation or bona fide defence is an abuse of process and will be set aside.
Civil procedure – default judgment – late notice of intention to defend – Rule 19(5) – condonation – Rule 27 – abuse of process; Stare decisis – single‑judge precedents binding unless clearly/palpably wrong; Costs – attorney and client scale.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove a material change to vary child maintenance; absence of transcript was decisive.
Family law — Maintenance — Variation of pendente lite order under Rule 43(6) — Applicant’s onus to prove material change in circumstances — Importance of transcript/written reasons of earlier hearing — Rule 42(1)(b) alternative abandoned — Costs: no order where both parties failed to produce transcript.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where municipality failed its statutory duty to annually update the valuation roll under the Rates Act.
Municipal law – Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act – section 77 obligation to update valuation roll annually – compliance by means of supplementary valuation roll (s78) or amendment (s79). Interpretation of section 78(1)(d) – backdating rates and limits on successive supplementary rolls. Administrative law – exhaustion of internal remedies before review. Civil procedure – leave to appeal under Superior Courts Act s17(1)(a)(i) – heightened threshold requiring reasonable prospect that another court will differ.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
Interim interdict granted to prevent destruction of an impounded vehicle pending proof of ownership and challenge to impoundment.
• Municipal impoundment of abandoned vehicles – interim relief to prevent destruction/forfeiture pending proof of ownership.• Urgent interdict – preservation of assets where risk of irreversible harm exists despite prima facie lawful impoundment.• Proof of ownership vs registered ownership – requirement to provide affidavit or other proof to City before release or access to infringement documentation.• Constitutional challenge to impoundment regulations not decided in urgent interlocutory proceedings.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
A complainant has standing to review a regulator’s disciplinary outcome; the investigatory committee acted ultra vires proposing sanctions.
Administrative law – PAJA review – standing under s 38 of the Constitution – complainant/whistleblower entitled to review; Statutory regulatory procedure – Investigating Committee (INVESCO) vs Enforcement Committee (ENCOM) – INVESCO acted ultra vires by proposing sanction and furnishing draft charge to respondent; Failure to follow APA and Disciplinary Rules – procedural unfairness and error of law – decisions set aside and matter remitted for de novo investigation; Remedy – remittal with directions; Costs awarded against regulator.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
Whether debt for wrongful arrest/detention fell due at arrest and whether the appellant could withdraw condonation.
Administrative law/State liability – Institution of Legal Proceedings Act s 3(1)– When a debt for wrongful arrest/detention becomes due (trigger date): arrest and each day of unlawful detention as distinct debts; section 3(3)(a) knowledge requirement and constructive knowledge; service by registered post presumed received; condonation for late notice—court’s discretion to refuse withdrawal of condonation application; Rule 25(3) – effect of failure to replicate to special plea.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
Whether a settlement agreement included a property security and warranted a mandatory interdict to cancel the bond and deliver the title deed.
Contract interpretation – Settlement agreement construed in light of language, context and pre-contractual correspondence – Omission of account numbers construed to include all claims and suretyships; Civil procedure – mandatory interdict – requirements (clear right, injury reasonably apprehended, no alternative remedy) satisfied; Order nisi to cancel bond and deliver title deed.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused: repeated litigation barred, oral trust upheld, corporate applicants lacked standing; costs awarded.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – high threshold under s 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act; repetitive proceedings and abuse of process justify refusal of leave. Trust law – oral trusts valid under s 2 of the Trust Property Control Act; conduct and contemporaneous documentation can establish beneficial ownership. Company law – shareholder lacks standing to litigate wrongs alleged to have been done to the company; joinder/intervention refused where no legally protected interest. Costs – leave applications dismissed with costs on Scale C, including costs of two counsel where employed.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
A wide indemnity obliged the co‑principal to indemnify the guarantor for guarantee‑related payments despite cession and non‑participation in the MOA.
Guarantee and indemnity – wide indemnity covering all losses arising from issuance of guarantee; Guarantee independent of underlying contract; Cession does not extinguish pre-existing indemnity liability; Formal demand not required to trigger indemnity; Co‑principal in solidum liability and waiver of exceptions enforceable; Rule 41A election not fatal.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove insolvency; outdated valuation and accepted book debts defeated provisional sequestration.
Insolvency — provisional sequestration — proof of factual insolvency (s10(b)) — act of insolvency (s8(g)) — late reliance on new ground in heads of argument — valuation evidence must be current — onus on applicant to prove insolvency at hearing date; service objection under Rule 30A rejected.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Application to rescind a Rule 46A reserve‑price order dismissed for failure to establish any rescission grounds.
Civil procedure – rescission of orders – Rule 46A reserve‑price order – whether susceptible to rescission; Rule 31(2)(b) – setting aside default judgment – wilful default and bona fide defence; Rule 42(1) – variation and rescission for orders erroneously granted, ambiguity, patent error or common mistake; Common‑law rescission – reasonable explanation for default and prospects of success; Costs – punitive attorney and client scale for frivolous/dilatory litigation.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Court refused condonation for lengthy unexplained delay and granted eviction after lawful lease cancellation for rent arrears.
• Condonation – late filing of answering affidavit – inordinate delay, inadequate explanation, lack of full and honest account – condonation refused.
• Lease law – cancellation for breach after seven‑day demand – lawful cancellation where tenant in arrears.
• Eviction – unlawful occupation after lawful termination – order for vacant possession and sheriff enforcement.
• Costs – attorney-and‑client scale awarded against respondent.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Extensive factual disputes about a POCA restraint, State liability and curator conduct require referral to trial.
POCA – restraint orders (s 26) – State liability for estate expenses post‑acquittal; Curator bonis – duties, accounting (s 83 Admin of Estates Act; s 32(2) POCA), removal/substitution (s 28(3)(a)(ii) POCA; s 54(1)(a)(v) Admin of Estates Act); Motion procedure v action – inappropriate to resolve broad disputed facts on affidavits; Relief sought: restoration of assets, declarator re curator competence (s 54(4)), disallowance of remuneration (s 84(2) Admin of Estates Act).
|
22 October 2025 |
|
Court refused to set aside student suspensions or interdict disciplinary inquiry absent exceptional circumstances.
Administrative law – interim relief against university disciplinary proceedings – application of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test. Higher education – disciplinary powers and suspension pending inquiry – reasonableness of belief required under student discipline regulations. Procedural fairness – scope of precautionary suspensions and necessity of specific pleading to obtain narrowing relief. Judicial restraint – deference to internal disciplinary processes absent manifest unfairness.
|
22 October 2025 |
|
Uncontested expert affidavit evidence admitted under Rule 38(2) established plaintiff’s future loss of earning capacity under the narrative test.
• Civil procedure – Default trial and assessment of unliquidated damages – admission of expert affidavits under Rule 38(2) – reliance on Baliso. • Personal injury – head injury, hearing loss and fractured mandible – assessment of future loss of earning capacity – narrative test and Kerridge approach.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Eviction under PIE granted where alleged oral transfer failed s2(1) formalities; punitive costs awarded against respondents and their attorney.
PIE Act – Eviction under s 4(2) – jurisdiction requires occupier to be unlawful at launch of proceedings; consent terminated by cancellation. Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 s 2(1) – oral agreements alienating land are of no force and effect; formal deed required. Just and equitable assessment under PIE s 4(7)–(8) – factors include notice, occupiers’ means, presence of vulnerable persons, and available alternative accommodation. Joinder procedure – improper/incorrect rule and abandonment can attract punitive costs; attorney liable where conduct warrants it on a punitive scale. Costs – attorney-and-client costs awarded where conduct warrants punishment; de bonis propriis refused for main eviction.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Section 102(2) of the Systems Act does not prevent prescription of disputed municipal electricity charges.
Prescription Act – ordinary municipal consumption charges prescribe after three years; Systems Act s102(2) – does not prevent or delay prescription; Payments of monthly accounts do not interrupt prescription where disputed amounts are ringfenced; Court may grant declaratory relief, order write-off and reversal of interest/fees, and interdict termination of services.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Urgent enforcement of an 18‑month restraint and protection of employer confidential information against ex‑employee and third party.
Restraint of trade — enforceability where compensation paid as part of salary — confidentiality — urgent interim interdict — waiver/condonation — third party restrained from using or facilitating use of employer’s confidential information — application of Plascon‑Evans credibility assessment.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
A company in liquidation lacks standing; rescission of a winding‑up order requires s354(1) application showing exceptional circumstances.
Companies Act s354(1) – rescission of winding‑up orders – standing of liquidator/member/creditor – Rule 31(2)(b) inapplicable – requirement of exceptional circumstances and full disclosure of company’s affairs – costs on scale A.
|
20 October 2025 |