|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2025 |
|
|
Applicants granted interim interdict preventing respondents selling ROM/lumpy/chip containing PGMs pending review to protect applicants’ prima facie PGM rights.
• Mining law – competing mineral rights – overlapping rights to chromitite where PGMs are disseminated in chromite; obligation to act civiliter modo/with Ubuntu.
• Interim interdict – requirements: prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience, no satisfactory alternative – satisfied to protect PGM rights pending review.
• Beneficiation and metallurgical process – PGMs recoverable only after fine milling/sub‑1mm processing; ROM/lumpy/small lumpy/chip contain PGMs and may not be sold pending review.
• Relief – interlocutory prohibition on exploitation/sale of PGMs pending review; limited carve‑outs for sub‑1mm chrome concentrate and community use of waste rock.
|
12 November 2025 |
|
An interlocutory Rule 6(15) strike-out challenging evidentiary weight or factual correctness is premature and must await the merits hearing.
Companies Act – business rescue — interlocutory strike-out under Uniform Rule 6(15) — prematurity of strike-out applications aimed at weight or factual correctness — strike-out to be determined with merits where appropriate — costs awarded as wasted costs.
|
12 November 2025 |
|
Manager-signed balance certificates and demand letters established mora; sureties are jointly and severally liable, NCA inapplicable to the suretyships.
Civil procedure – motion proceedings – application of Plascon-Evans/Wightman: bare denials do not create real disputes of fact; Contract law – suretyship/guarantee – co-principal debtor status and joint-and-several liability; Evidence/contract terms – manager-signed certificate of balance admissible and sufficient under contractual clause; Mora – letters of demand place debtor and sureties in mora; National Credit Act – s4(2)(c) excludes these suretyship claims from NCA application.
|
12 November 2025 |
|
High Court may not vary or suspend an ongoing Children's Court care order absent appeal; application dismissed with costs.
Family law – Children's Court orders – jurisdictional limits of the High Court to vary or suspend ongoing Children's Court orders without appeal or variation in the Children's Court. Procedural competency – interim relief and investigative reports in High Court cannot supplant Children's Court dispositions. Dependent relief – secondary prayers premised on primary, incompetent relief must fail.
|
12 November 2025 |
|
High Court will not suspend a reasoned Children’s Court order absent appeal or proper Children’s Court remedy; postponement refused.
Children’s Court orders – status as Magistrates’ Court orders under Children’s Act – High Court’s limited role absent appeal; remedy of variation or appeal lies in Children’s Court; postponement not warranted where prospects of success are weak and respondent prejudiced.
|
12 November 2025 |
|
Parties’ conduct and prima facie evidence can preclude absolution despite allegations of unfulfilled suspensive conditions.
Civil procedure – absolution from the instance – test is whether there is evidence upon which a reasonable court might find for the plaintiff (prima facie case). Contract law – interpretation – whether a clause constitutes a suspensive condition/condition precedent or merely a contractual term must be decided from the language and surrounding circumstances. Contractual conduct – parties’ subsequent conduct (disbursement, suretyship, mortgage registration, payments) may indicate the contract was treated as operative and inform interpretation. Onus – plaintiff bears the burden of proving fulfilment of alleged suspensive conditions where relied upon by defendant. Matrimonial/property and consumer issues – s15(4) Matrimonial Property Act and NCA issues may require defendant evidence and cannot be disposed of on plaintiff’s case alone.
|
11 November 2025 |
|
Summary judgment granted against surety: marriage defence, liquidation and other defences rejected; s15(6) MPA and bona fide defence principles applied.
Civil procedure – summary judgment – requirements to disclose bona fide triable defence; suretyship – spousal consent and s15(6) Matrimonial Property Act – ordinary course of business exception; lex domicilii matrimonii – recognition of foreign marriage; insolvency/liquidation – creditor may proceed against surety despite winding-up proceedings; admissibility of new evidence at summary-judgment stage.
|
11 November 2025 |
|
Winding‑up dismissed where the debt was bona fide disputed; s69(1)(a) is a deeming provision, not sole liquidation ground.
Company law – close corporations – section 69(1)(a) Close Corporations Act – deeming provision as to inability to pay debts; not an independent basis for liquidation – must invoke s344(f) Companies Act 1973. Civil practice – Plascon‑Evans standard applies in liquidation applications where respondent’s factual version is disputed. Insolvency/winding‑up – winding‑up not to be used to enforce bona fide disputed debts; persistence amounts to abuse of process. Costs – punitive costs (attorney and client) appropriate where applicant persists despite clear, reasonably grounded dispute.
|
11 November 2025 |
|
Approval in principle does not satisfy a mortgage-bond suspensive condition; sale lapsed and urgent relief was refused.
• Contract law – suspensive condition/condition precedent – finance/mortgage bond condition must be fulfilled in forma specifica within agreed time limit.
• Banking/real-estate practice – 'approval in principle' does not equate to a contractual 'quotation and/or pre-agreement statement' where further conditions (valuation, documents) are required.
• Civil procedure – urgency under Uniform Rule 6(12)(b) and interdictory relief – applicant must show urgency, clear right and absence of satisfactory alternative remedies.
• Joinder – purchaser and lending bank as necessary parties where their legal interests may be affected.
|
11 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal granted to Full Court because the proposed appeal has reasonable prospects of success under s 17(1)(a)(i).
Civil procedure – application for leave to appeal – s 17(1)(a)(i) Superior Courts Act – whether appeal has reasonable prospects of success (heightened threshold). Public procurement – review of tender award – compliance with s 217(1) Constitution (fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost‑effective). Procurement requirements – whether BBBEE verification certificate/affidavit or organogram are mandatory pre‑qualification conditions. Allegations of misrepresentation, tax non‑compliance and collusion in bid submissions – whether such grounds justify setting aside an award. Procedural disposition – leave granted to Full Court, costs to be costs in the appeal.
|
11 November 2025 |
|
A superior court may, under section 173, enroll and postpone procedural matters despite Uniform Rules, where interests of justice permit.
Constitutional and civil procedure – inherent power of Superior Courts (section 173) – courts may regulate their own processes and depart from strict observance of Uniform Rules where interests of justice require; rules exist for courts, not courts for rules. Procedure – enrollment and postponement of matters on motion roll – Registrar not shown to have exclusive enrollment power under rule 6. Limits – inherent power confined to procedural matters and subject to prejudice/interests of justice assessment. Costs – interlocutory costs reserved for determination by the hearing court.
|
10 November 2025 |
|
Court confirmed sequestration, refused extension, finding the guarantee a primary obligation and a reasonable prospect of benefit to creditors.
Insolvency — sequestration — extension of provisional sequestration order — test for postponement/extension (prima facie defence and reasonable explanation) — demand guarantee vs suretyship — primary/demand undertaking enforceable despite challenge to underlying debtor’s agreement — waiver of excussion — insurance payments speculative/res inter alios acta — benefit to creditors: reasonable prospect of uncovering concealed assets (nulla bona returns).
|
10 November 2025 |
|
A written offer to compromise (s8(e)), even if 'without prejudice', can found final sequestration; postponement refused.
Insolvency law – Act of insolvency – s8(e) offer/arrangement with creditors – settlement letters (including without prejudice) can constitute an act of insolvency. Practice – Replying/supplementary affidavits – later acts of insolvency material may be relied upon where before the court. Civil procedure – tactical late filing and avoidance of dealing with material – postponement refused. Sequestration – advantage to creditors and final sequestration order granted where act of insolvency established.
|
10 November 2025 |
|
WhatsApp messages and banking entries proved that payments in a romantic context were loans, not donations.
Contract — loan v donation — oral loans during a romantic relationship — role of contemporaneous electronic communications and bank references in proving intention. Evidence — weight of documentary evidence vis-à-vis witness demeanour; adverse inference from silence where repudiation expected (McWilliams principle). Civil procedure — absolution from the instance set aside where plaintiffs discharge onus on probabilities.
|
10 November 2025 |
|
A municipality may lawfully classify privately provided education properties as 'business and commercial' under the Rates Act; this is not an income tax and is not irrational.
• Municipal rates – Differential rates under s 8 of the Municipal Property Rates Act – Permissible basis: use, permitted use or both – 'Business and commercial' category valid under s 8(2)(c). • Taxation – Municipal rates distinguishable from income tax; classification not an impermissible tax on income. • Sub‑categories – s 8(4) ministerial authorisation required only for actual sub‑categorisation; by‑law definitions giving content to existing category lawful. • SPLUMA – Land‑use definitions not determinative for rates classification; different statutory contexts.
|
10 November 2025 |
|
Final winding-up granted where deadlock and diversion of business by co-member established; 50% beneficial membership upheld.
Company law – winding-up on just and equitable grounds – deadlock between equal members and diversion of business to related entity warrant winding-up despite absence of proven commercial insolvency. Shareholding dispute – nominee versus beneficial ownership – beneficial interest found on balance of probabilities. Equitable defences – alleged lack of clean hands does not bar relief where conduct did not cause breakdown. Procedure – provisional order may be made on prima facie case; respondents must adduce evidence on return day to rebut. Insolvency inquiries – section 417/418 enquiry requires proper application procedure and proposed commissioner.
|
10 November 2025 |
|
Application for anti‑spoliatory relief dismissed for lack of statutory notice and absence of prior possession; punitive costs awarded.
Customs and Excise Act s96(1) – jurisdictional notice requirement; mandament van spolie – requirement of prior peaceful possession; urgency practice – abuse of urgent process; Uniform Rule 7 – authority to represent; costs de bonis propriis and attorney-and-client scale.
|
10 November 2025 |
|
Transgender inmate entitled to state-funded gender-affirming hormone therapy and protection from discrimination under PEPUDA and the Constitution.
• Equality law – PEPUDA – unfair discrimination and harassment – denial of gender expression, misgendering, inappropriate housing and withholding of gender-affirming treatment.
• Constitutional rights of detainees – section 35(2)(e) – ‘adequate medical treatment’ includes medically indicated gender-affirming hormone therapy and associated care.
• Correctional Services Act/National Health Act – tiered health-care argument rejected where statutory limitation unproclaimed and does not exclude specialist care for inmates.
• Remedies – enforcement of SOPs, accommodation in single cell or with same gender-identity inmates, state-funded gender-affirming health care throughout detention and parole.
|
10 November 2025 |
|
Amendment to plead a contractual cause of action did not create a new 'debt' for prescription; exception to prescription upheld.
Prescription – Prescription Act s10 and s11 – debt versus cause of action – amendment introducing contractual cause of action did not create new debt where original particulars already raised contract – special plea of prescription dismissed by exception.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Arrest and detention were lawful where injured complainant identified suspects; no mala fide non‑disclosure by the respondent.
Delict – unlawful arrest and detention; Criminal Procedure Act s40(1)(b) – reasonable suspicion; vicarious liability and course of employment; post‑appearance detention and duty to disclose material facts to prosecutor; evaluation of credibility and probabilities.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Whether the plaintiffs’ arrest and detention were unlawful; court found the respondent not liable and dismissed the claim.
Delict — unlawful arrest and detention; s40(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Act — reasonable suspicion and jurisdictional facts for warrantless arrest; vicarious liability of Minister of Police; post‑appearance remand for verification of legality/address; duty to disclose relevant facts to prosecutor; burden and evaluation of single-witness evidence.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Application for leave to appeal dismissed: no reasonable prospects, mero motu review impermissible, Biowatch principle inapplicable.
Civil procedure — leave to appeal — s 17(1)(a) Superior Courts Act — reasonable prospects of success; Administrative law — collateral challenge and mero motu review — administrative acts remain valid until set aside; PAJA — condonation requirement and jurisdictional fact; Costs — Biowatch principle limited to constitutional litigation; judicial discretion in costs.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Contractual cancellation for non-payment upheld; bare denial without proof fails — eviction ordered and attorney-and-client costs awarded.
Commercial lease — cancellation for non-payment under contractual breach clause; motion proceedings — bare denial insufficient to raise bona fide dispute of fact (Wightman); onus on debtor to prove payment; lawful eviction ordered; contractual attorney-and-client costs upheld.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Court refused condonation and ordered discovery of financials, tax returns, SASRIA claims and CCTV for damages assessment.
Civil procedure – Rule 35(3) discovery – Whether respondent must discover financial statements, tax returns, insurance claims and CCTV – Court may go behind discovery affidavit where pleadings/documents give reasonable grounds to suppose documents are in possession – Condonation for late affidavit refused – Costs on scale B.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed: refusal of postponement had no factual foundation and no reasonable prospect of success.
Superior Courts Act s17 – leave to appeal – appeal requires reasonable prospect of success or compelling reason; Postponement applications – need factual foundation and proof of prejudice to justify postponement; Fair hearing (s34) – allegation of ineffective representation must be substantiated; Supporting affidavits/new evidence – leave to appeal confined to the record of the court a quo; Costs – attorney and client costs where applicant failed to ensure timely prosecution of application.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Court awards substantial general damages and trust for a conscious, profoundly disabled minor, distinguishing SCA precedent.
Delict — Birth-related severe brain injury — General damages for conscious, profoundly disabled minor — Distinction from SCA AAS decision — Joint expert minute binding — Necessity of trust; 7.5% costs — Refusal to develop common law for periodic payments absent factual foundation (DZ).
|
7 November 2025 |
|
A suspended prison sentence qualifies for statutory director disqualification and mandates a delinquency declaration under the Companies Act.
Companies Act s69(8)(b)(iv) – director disqualification – suspended prison sentence qualifies as "imprisoned without option of fine"; Companies Act s162(5)(a) – mandatory declaration of delinquent director where person acted while disqualified; statutory interpretation – focus on sentence imposed, not sentence served.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Appeal upheld: magistrate erred; final protection order required under DV Act for respondent’s abuse of complainant and children.
Domestic Violence Act s6(4) — mandatory final protection order where balance of probabilities established; parental alienation and child exposure as emotional/psychological abuse; third‑party actor liability; distinction between DV Act and Prevention of Harassment Act definitions of harassment; approach to disputes of fact on affidavit in motion proceedings.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Court issued interim order directing utility to restore electricity and condoned defective service due to urgency.
Urgent interim relief – condonation of non‑compliance with rules of notice and service – rule nisi – interim interdict directing utility to restore electricity – state directed to ensure compliance.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Police officer convicted of murder and attempted murder; circumstantial and child testimony established guilt, premeditation not proven.
Criminal law – Murder and attempted murder – credibility and competency of child witness – circumstantial and ballistic evidence – no forced entry – accused’s inconsistent versions – planning/premeditation not proven – convictions under s51(2) of Act 105 of 1997.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Final winding-up granted where respondent admitted debt and insolvency; condonation for late opposition refused.
Company law – Liquidation – Final winding-up order – Where respondent does not dispute indebtedness or insolvency, final winding-up appropriate. Civil procedure – Condonation – Late notice to oppose – Reliance on commercial negotiations, impecuniosity and health not sufficient to grant condonation. Service – Compliance with service requirements for rule nisi supports conversion to final order. Practice – Director appearing in person may be heard but cannot create dispute where none exists in papers.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
A writ issued without the creditor complying with section 3(4) of the State Liability Act is unlawful and set aside.
State Liability Act s 3 – requirements for satisfaction of monetary judgments against the State; service on executive authority, accounting officer, State Attorney and treasury. Interpretation – 'may' in s 3(4) is permissive as to election to proceed but mandatory as a precondition if creditor elects to execute. Execution – writ issued without compliance with s 3(4) unlawful; attachments set aside. Joinder – non-joinder of registrar not fatal to setting aside writ.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
A judgment creditor must comply with section 3(4) of the State Liability Act before obtaining a writ against State property; failure renders the writ invalid.
State Liability Act s3 — execution against State property; whether service required by s3(4) is jurisdictional before issuing writ under s3(6); purpose of s3 to make attachment a last resort; State Attorney duties s3(2) do not relieve judgment creditor of s3(4) obligations; non-joinder of registrar not fatal.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
Declarator against the former occupier and eviction of persons occupying through him granted; occupiers given 30 days to vacate.
Eviction (PIE) – declaratory relief where former occupant has vacated; eviction against persons occupying “through or under” a former occupier; service and notice under section 4(2) PIE; audi alteram partem and procedural fairness; just and equitable assessment of eviction (consideration of City report, homelessness risk, alternative accommodation); sheriff authorised to evict; costs against former occupier.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
Cancellation of the sale agreement terminated the second applicant’s contractual shareholder rights; the director’s removal was valid.
Company law; sale of shares agreement – cancellation and restitution – contractual entitlement to be treated as shareholder does not survive cancellation; procedural urgency; costs including two counsel.
|
4 November 2025 |
|
Improved or self-created circumstances do not justify urgent relief; application struck for lack of urgency.
Urgency — self-created urgency; Rule 6(12) — requirements for urgent relief; abuse of court process; interim deadlines and extensions; costs on attorney-and-client scale.
|
4 November 2025 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove PRASA’s or contracted guards’ negligence; claim dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.
Delict — public carrier/organ of state duty to protect commuters — delegation to private security contractors — Langley Fox test for employer liability for independent contractors — foreseeability, reasonable steps and supervisory measures — reliance on contemporaneous liability report over inconsistent plaintiff testimony — failure to prove negligence and causation.
|
4 November 2025 |
|
Application to convert a five-year imprisonment to correctional supervision dismissed due to offence gravity, unreliable amicus evidence, and abuse of process.
Criminal Procedure Act s276A(3) — conversion of imprisonment to correctional supervision; Correctional Services Act s73; organised crime offences with prescribed minimum sentences (POCA); role and reliability of amicus curiae submissions; abuse of process and public confidence in sentencing.
|
4 November 2025 |
|
Ambiguous AoD references create a triable issue as to who is debtor; summary judgment dismissed with costs.
• Civil procedure – summary judgment (Rule 32) – defendant must disclose bona fide defence with material facts.
• Contract interpretation – ambiguous instrument – interpretative triad: text, context and purpose; extrinsic evidence admissible to resolve ambiguity.
• Acknowledgement of Debt – inconsistent pronouns and references may create a triable issue as to debtor’s identity.
|
3 November 2025 |
|
Applicant entitled to summary judgment for cancellation and return of vehicle; respondent failed to raise a bona fide defence.
Summary judgment — Rule 32(2)(a) and (3)(b) — deponent’s knowledge via company records; bona fide defence requirement; registration under National Credit Act; repossession under instalment sale agreement; statement/debatement of account.
|
3 November 2025 |
|
Child to be returned to Denmark; no parental consent or Article 13(b) grave‑risk defence established.
Hague Convention (Art 12, 13) — habitual residence and wrongful removal — Article 13(a) consent/acquiescence; Article 13(b) grave risk standard — high evidential threshold; evidential assessment in summary Convention proceedings; ancillary protective measures and enforcement.
|
3 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused: invoice dispute and punitive costs lacked reasonable prospects; court corrected payment date and costs wording.
• Civil procedure — Leave to appeal — Section 17(1)(a) Superior Courts Act — higher threshold: appeal must have a reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reason.
• Contract interpretation — Investment Advisory Agreement — fees payable on month-end value of entire Seshego portfolios until termination date.
• Evidence — disputed indebtedness — requirement to produce objective proof (bank statements/confirmations) of payments from third party (Old Mutual).
• Costs — punitive (attorney-and-client) costs justified where defence is contrived and raised after litigation; appellate interference limited absent misdirection.
• Rule 42(1)(b) — court may mero motu correct patent errors or ambiguities in its order (amend payment date; delete erroneous phrase re advocates’ costs).
|
3 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused: municipal water charges prescribe; s102(2) Systems Act does not suspend prescription.
Municipal law — water consumption charges — prescription — section 102(2) Municipal Systems Act does not suspend or delay prescription; consumption charges are ordinary debts prescribing after three years; municipality bears onus to prove meter accuracy and account correctness; leave to appeal requires a reasonable prospect of success under s17(1) Superior Courts Act.
|
3 November 2025 |
|
An offer to pay without actual payment does not relieve a debtor from costs; costs awarded on Scale C.
Companies Act — Winding-up application — Withdrawal after payment — effect of offers/tenders without payment on costs liability. Civil procedure — Costs — Rule 67A and Rule 69 — selection of scale (Scale C justified by complexity, value and delay). Practice — A mere undertaking or offer to pay does not oblige applicant to withdraw or postpone proceedings in absence of actual payment.
|
3 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal against a R650,000 general damages award dismissed for lacking reasonable prospects under s17 Superior Courts Act.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – Superior Courts Act s17(1)(a) – reasonable prospects of success required; mere possibility of a different view insufficient. Damages – assessment of general damages for multiple injuries (comminuted femur fracture, facial fracture, mild traumatic brain injury) – factual evaluation and comparators – awards are case-specific. Precedent – reliance on Masemola distinguished; prior awards not automatically determinative.
|
3 November 2025 |
|
Court dispensed with non-custodial parent’s consent for passport/visa, finding short holiday in child’s best interests and withholding of consent mala fide.
Children’s Act s18(3)(iii) — dispensing with parental consent for passport and travel; Regulation GNR784/1986 — consent for minor’s passport; best interests of the child principle; child’s participation (s10); urgency under Rule 6(12); mala fide withholding of consent and disguised relocation considerations.
|
3 November 2025 |
|
A municipal billing dispute properly raised under s102(2) Systems Act can delay completion of prescription under s13(1)(a) Prescription Act; electricity charges before 30 April 2017 prescribed.
• Municipal law – Systems Act s102(2) – dispute about specific billed amounts bars debt‑collection measures while unresolved; • Prescription Act s13(1)(a) – statutory impediment: s102(2) constitutes a legal impediment delaying completion of prescription; • Prescription – when debt is due; interplay between municipal dispute procedures and running/interruption of prescription; • Practice – condonation for late filing of answering affidavit refused; costs awarded on punitive scale.
|
3 November 2025 |
| 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 |