|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2022 |
|
|
A Road Accident Fund directive rejecting past medical expenses paid by medical schemes is unlawful and set aside as inconsistent with s 17.
• Administrative law – reviewability of internal directives under PAJA; unlawfulness, irrationality and failure to consult. • Road Accident Fund Act (s 17) – Fund’s liability for past medical expenses; payment by private medical schemes not deductible. • Urgency – immediate prejudice to claimants and medical schemes justifies urgent review and interdict.
|
26 October 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to prove statutory requisites for forfeiture under section 9(1); appeal dismissed with costs.
Family law – Divorce Act s9(1) – forfeiture of patrimonial benefits – onus on claimant to prove duration, circumstances of breakdown and substantial misconduct – desertion alone insufficient; procedural law – substitution of deceased’s executor and reinstatement of appeal – interests of justice may justify condonation despite delays.
|
26 October 2022 |
|
Unauthorised attorneys' late opposition fails; purported co-business rescue practitioner appointment declared invalid.
Companies Act – business rescue – appointment and removal of business rescue practitioners; Condonation – late filing of opposition and counter-application; Authority of attorneys – validity of board resolutions and ratification; Corporate governance – board versus exco powers to appoint BRP; Licence lapse – temporary non-renewal of CIPC licence does not automatically terminate BRP appointment.
|
26 October 2022 |
|
Plaintiff entitled to damages for negligent spinal fusion; RAF payment reduced but did not bar recovery against the State.
Medical negligence – unnecessary spinal fusion (T10–T12) where injury was L1–L2 compression fracture – vicarious liability of State hospital. Prescription – knowledge of negligent surgery only acquired in September 2016; claim not prescribed. Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 – notice issue considered and did not bar claim. Road Accident Fund payment – double compensation defence: RAF payment related to motor accident injuries and did not extinguish defendant's liability for negligent surgery. Quantum – holistic valuation of combined losses (R2,600,000) less RAF payment (R980,000) = R1,720,000 payable by defendant; costs including two counsel awarded.
|
26 October 2022 |
|
Rescission dismissed: applicant failed to explain default, show bona fide defence, and service by domicilium was valid.
Civil procedure – Rescission of default judgment – Requirements: reasonable explanation for default and bona fide defence with prospects of success; Service – Domicilium agreement and service by affixing – valid compliance; Registrar’s powers under Rule 31(5)(a) – default judgment; Postponement – indulgence requires good cause and absence of prejudice; Condonation – granted for late filings where no prejudice shown.
|
26 October 2022 |
|
Mandatory psychological assessment of existing children is not required; courts may order assessments where circumstances justify them.
Child law – Surrogacy – Confirmation of surrogate motherhood agreements – Whether assessment of existing children by a clinical psychologist is required as a rule under s 295 of the Children's Act – Best interests principle requires individualized, case-by-case inquiry. Surrogacy – s 295(c)(ii) emotional-availability criterion and KAF 2 suitability criteria as means to protect existing children. Courts have discretion to order child assessments where parental reports or facts justify it; mandatory blanket assessments not required.
|
25 October 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to show reasonable prospects of success; leave to appeal dismissed with costs including two counsel.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – requirement to show reasonable prospects of success; mere possibility insufficient. Interim interdict – requirements of prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience and absence of alternative remedies; sliding-scale approach considered. Appeal route – application for direct leave to appeal to SCA declined.
|
25 October 2022 |
|
|
25 October 2022 |
|
|
25 October 2022 |
|
Applicants’ simultaneous temporary‑authorisation and licence applications were premature and an abuse of process; no PAJA failure established.
Administrative law – PAJA – alleged failure to take a decision; Firearms Control Act and Regulations – Regulation 23(2)(a) temporary authorisations (seven‑day rule) and simultaneous licence/temporary‑authorisation applications; abuse of process and prematurity of application; requirements for specificity and evidence in review applications; costs ordered against applicants.
|
24 October 2022 |
|
The applicant’s leave to appeal on loss-of-earnings was refused for lacking reasonable prospects and raising new, unpleaded oral grounds.
Application for leave to appeal — Rule 49 and s17 Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 — elevated threshold for leave; alleged misdirection on loss of earning and weight of expert evidence; inadmissibility of new oral grounds not pleaded; leave refused.
|
24 October 2022 |
|
The applicant’s stay was refused for failing to show irreparable harm and for not rebutting title and bond registration.
Rule 45A – suspension of execution; discretion to grant stay where real and substantial justice requires it; registration of transfer and mortgage bond as prima facie proof of ownership; procedural route for rescission (Rule 31 v Rule 42); irreparable harm requirement for stays; costs follow success.
|
24 October 2022 |
|
Court awarded R350,000 general damages and directed actuarial quantification of future loss of earnings; resignation recommendation rejected.
Road Accident Fund – quantum – assessment of general damages and loss of earning capacity where medico‑legal reports are uncontested and respondent absent Future medical contingency – likely ankle arthrodesis and lifelong assistive needs Loss of earnings – rejection of expert recommendation to force resignation; actuarial approach with contingencies directed Default hearing – uncontested expert evidence may be relied upon for quantum
|
24 October 2022 |
|
Whether execution of a court order permitting mid‑year commencement of nursing programmes pending appeal may be ordered contrary to regulatory requirements.
Superior Courts Act s 18(3) — exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm; administrative law — interpretation and application of regulatory prescription requiring a 44‑week academic year to fall within a single calendar year; legitimate expectation; limits on putting orders into operation pending appeal where execution would contravene regulations.
|
24 October 2022 |
|
A body corporate may not withhold a levy clearance certificate to compel compliance once all levies have been paid.
Sectional Titles Act s15B(3)(a)(i)(aa) – levy clearance certificate limited to confirming payment of monies due to a body corporate; cannot be used to enforce non-monetary compliance. Sectional Title Schemes Management Act s3(1)(p) – body corporate’s duty to ensure compliance requires proactive enforcement, not use of clearance certificates as leverage. Interpretation – statutory embargoes construed strictly; levy clearance serves as security for debt recovery only. Remedies – refer disputes about building approvals to Community Schemes Ombud Service; body corporate must demand rectification when transgressions occur. Costs – punitive/attorney-and-client costs warranted where clearance certificate threatened as extortionate leverage.
|
24 October 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal on prospects of success in applying Anton Piller principles.
Appeal – application for leave to appeal – prospects of success – principles in Dabelstein v Hildebrandt – Anton Piller applications – appropriate appellate forum.
|
24 October 2022 |
|
Interdict and eviction claims dismissed for lack of clear right, failure to pursue mediation and available administrative remedy.
Procedural law – Rule 41A – obligation to consider mediation and to file required notice before litigation.* Constitutional/administrative law – SPLUMA s26(5) – availability of land-use amendment/rezoning as alternative remedy to litigation.* Civil/interdictory relief – requisites for final interdict (clear right; injury; absence of alternative remedy) – applicant must prove right and lack of alternatives.* Locus standi – applicant’s own averments of pending ownership dispute can defeat locus standi and a claim to a clear right.* Eviction and declaratory relief – cannot be granted where founding papers do not support such relief.
|
24 October 2022 |
|
Recission refused: applicant failed to show timely notice, good cause or a bona fide defence; punitive costs awarded.
Civil procedure – Recission of default judgment – Rule 31(2)(b) and common law requirements; reasonable explanation, bona fides and bona fide defence; condonation for late filing; service on mandated attorney; punitive costs (attorney-and-client) payable from sale proceeds.
|
24 October 2022 |
|
A High Court claim based on an alleged unfair dismissal was dismissed: exclusive LRA jurisdiction, prescription, and res judicata barred the action.
Labour law – jurisdiction – where plaintiff’s cause of action is essentially an unfair dismissal dispute the LRA’s specialist forums have exclusive competence; Prescription – debt arising from dismissal accrues on dismissal and referral to bargaining council does not, without more, interrupt prescription; Res judicata – a final arbitration award on dismissal operates as lis finita and bars subsequent litigation on same issues.
|
21 October 2022 |
|
An in rem setting aside of valuation rolls binds non-parties, requiring the municipality to reverse invalid rates and remedy affected owners.
Municipal rates and valuation rolls – In rem setting aside of 2012 Supplementary Valuation Roll and 2013 General Valuation Roll for vacant land – effect on non-parties – municipality obliged to reverse invalid vacant-land rates, recalculate interest and reimburse or credit overpayments; declaratory relief and consequential remedies enforceable without separate reviews.
|
21 October 2022 |
|
On unopposed evidence Court awarded R383,691; RAF 100% liable and must give s17(4)(a) undertaking and pay costs.
Road Accident Fund – passenger’s claim – default judgment after defendant’s defence struck out – Rule 38(2) affidavits accepted – quantum: actuarial contingencies adjusted – s17(4)(a) undertaking for future medical costs – costs on High Court scale including senior counsel and experts.
|
21 October 2022 |
|
The respondent is liable for the applicant's lost income after negligently losing a seized vehicle; damages quantified at R893,859.
Police impound – duty of care for seized property; delictual liability for loss of seized goods; proof of loss of income in informal economy; factual and legal causation (but-for and foreseeability) where negligence conceded; mitigation of damages must be pleaded and proved by defendant; assessment of quantum and application of contingency deductions.
|
21 October 2022 |
|
A prescribed officer may be the subject of a section 162 delinquency claim; factual particularity is for trial or further particulars.
• Companies Act s162 – delinquency applications: ‘‘director’’ includes any person occupying director-like position, including prescribed officers in appropriate circumstances. • Companies Act s157(1)(d) – leave may be sought at appropriate time; failure to plead prior leave not fatal. • Fiduciary duties – prescribed officers/senior employees may owe director‑like duties; common law may be developed (s158). • Civil procedure – exception inappropriate to decide contested factual matters or require evidentiary particularity; deficiencies of detail are for further particulars/discovery under Uniform Rules 18(4) and 18(10).
|
21 October 2022 |
|
|
21 October 2022 |
|
Unlawful warrantless arrest and police liability for ensuing detention where police conduct influenced prosecution's opposition to bail.
Criminal procedure – s40(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Act – jurisdictional facts for warrantless arrest (peace officer, suspicion, schedule 1 offence, reasonable grounds, proper exercise of discretion); Police liability for post-appearance detention where police conduct or non-disclosure materially influences prosecutor/court; Requirement of evidence to prove assault by police; Quantum for unlawful arrest and detention (solatium).
|
21 October 2022 |
|
|
21 October 2022 |
|
Applicant’s sketchy founding affidavit failed to meet Plascon-Evans requirements; appeal against refusal of final interdict dismissed.
Interdict — final interdict — requirements: clear right, injury or well-grounded apprehension, absence of alternative remedy; founding affidavit must plead material particulars; Plascon-Evans test — applicant must stand or fall by founding affidavit; new substantive facts in reply cannot be used to cure defects.
|
21 October 2022 |
|
Withdrawal of CPO designation set aside for procedural unfairness, inadequate DQA and decision tainted by bad faith and ulterior purpose.
Administrative law – PAJA – withdrawal of CPO designation – procedural fairness – failure to comply with Regulation 32 – inadequate DQA sample and findings – no opportunity to respond. Administrative law – review grounds – ulterior purpose, bad faith, arbitrary/capricious decision-making (s 6(2)(e)(ii), (v), (vi)). Remedy – review and setting aside of administrative decision; reinstatement; punitive costs (attorney-and-client, two counsel); referral to SAHRC.
|
20 October 2022 |
|
|
20 October 2022 |
|
55m servitude construed as 27.5m either side of centre line; applicant's broader measurement claim dismissed.
Servitude law – interpretation of servitude instrument – servitude to be construed restrictively; external wording and annexed sketch decisive. Contract/Deed interpretation – clause prohibiting building within 27.5m of centre line means 55m is split 27.5m each side. Expert evidence – tribunal may reject experts who do not engage with the core interpretive question or lack factual foundation. Land Survey Act – s 29 not engaged where requisite factual steps not pleaded; s 46 requires notice not joinder; stay discretionary and not warranted without application.
|
20 October 2022 |
|
Court ordered sale in execution of a primary residence after finding Rule 46A satisfied; separate credit claim not prescribed.
Civil procedure – execution against primary residence – application of Rule 46A and proportionality factors; Mortgage enforcement – home loan arrears and declaration of property specially executable; Prescription – interruption by payment under Prescription Act s14; Points in limine – lis pendens and res judicata where prior proceedings withdrawn; National Credit Act – adequacy of section 129 notice.
|
20 October 2022 |
|
A notice of exception filed within the five-day notice-of-bar period is a permissible response and not an irregular step.
Civil procedure – Rule 23(1)(a) – Notice of intention to except – Whether a notice of exception served in response to a notice of bar is an irregular step. Civil procedure – Notice of bar – Bar takes effect only after lapse of five-day period; filing a permissible pleading within that period prevents the bar. Pleadings – Purpose of exception is to crystallize issues where pleadings are vague and embarrassing; notice of exception is a proper response to a notice of bar.
|
20 October 2022 |
|
Review dismissed where applicant failed to file the record of proceedings, rendering meaningful review impossible.
Administrative law — Review of refugee status refusal; requirement to file full record/Rule 53 for review; procedural fairness/audi; PAJA and principle of legality not determined due to absent record; failure to substantiatematerials; costs — no order.
|
20 October 2022 |
|
A regulator’s benchmarking guideline for municipal tariffs was declared unlawful for failing to ensure cost‑reflective tariffs under section 15(1) ERA.
Electricity regulation – tariff methodology – Guideline and Benchmarking Method declared unlawful for failing to ensure cost‑reflective municipal tariffs (s 15(1) ERA and EPP).; Administrative law – PAJA – methodology as guideline/policy lacking direct external legal effect; constitutional review under principle of legality competent.; Separation of powers – legality review by courts does not usurp regulator’s functions.; Relief – declaration of invalidity suspended 12 months; prohibition effective 2024/2025; costs awarded (two counsel).
|
20 October 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal granted where court found reasonable prospects another court may reach a different conclusion.
Application for leave to appeal — test: reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion — leave granted to Full Court — costs of application to be costs in the appeal.
|
19 October 2022 |
|
Interim interdict granted to preserve disputed property pending trial amid business rescue, bondholder and statutory subdivision disputes.
Property law – interim interdict to preserve land pending action – prima facie right, irreparable harm and balance of convenience; Business rescue – BRP duties to creditors vs. third-party proprietary claims; Transfer of immovable property – abstract theory, real agreement and possible rectification/restitution; Alienation of Land Act and Subdivision of Land Act considerations; Prescription and estoppel defenses on interim application.
|
18 October 2022 |
|
An incomplete memorandum dependent on an unsigned addendum cannot justify specific performance against the respondent.
Contract law – formation and certainty: memorandum dependent on unsigned addendum; incompleteness and vagueness fatal to contract; agreement-to-negotiate unenforceable; specific performance unavailable; arbitration clause and prematurity of litigation; condonation granted (Melane).
|
17 October 2022 |
|
Suretyships upheld; consolidation agreement not void ab initio; judgment for plaintiff with execution against sureties’ properties.
Suretyship enforceability; suspensive conditions and contract interpretation; principal-debtor admissions binding sureties; proof of claim and dividends in insolvency bind third-party sureties; Certificate of Balance and conversion to simple interest; execution against mortgaged properties.
|
17 October 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to show grounds for rescission; complaint amounted to a merits challenge and declaratory relief was refused.
Administrative law – rescission – Rule 42(1)(a),(b),(c) and common-law rescission – requirements for rescission where party was not cited; Review vs appeal – distinction between procedural defect warranting rescission and merits challenge; Joinder – non-joinder of municipal administrator not necessary where municipality represented; Judicial bias – disclosure and objective test for recusal; Declaratory relief – requirement for cogent factual basis.
|
17 October 2022 |
|
|
17 October 2022 |
|
Court corrected a patent clerical error, substituting "costs in the appeal" for "with costs" under Rule 42(1)(b).
Rule 42(1)(b) – correction of patent clerical errors in judgments; costs — distinction between "with costs" and "costs in the appeal"; leave to appeal — amendment of order by consent.
|
14 October 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal an eviction order granted where court found a reasonable prospect another court would differ.
Appeal — leave to appeal — section 17(1) Superior Courts Act — elevated threshold: reasonable prospect another court will differ — failure to specify s17 ground noted but not fatal — leave to appeal granted with costs in the appeal.
|
14 October 2022 |
|
Section 48 preserves acting judges’ authority for pending proceedings; s18(3) execution pending appeal was properly ordered and appeal dismissed.
Superior Courts Act s18(3),(4) and s48 – powers of acting judge post-appointment – procedural compliance with directives and answering affidavit – requirement to record immediate reasons under s18(4)(i) – test for execution pending appeal (irreparable harm, balance of probabilities, exceptional circumstances).
|
14 October 2022 |
|
Court dismissed broad application for disclosure and ancillary relief, upholding misjoinder/non‑joinder and awarding attorney‑and‑client costs.
Civil procedure — interlocutory relief — limits of court intervention in part‑heard trials — merits and case management belong to trial court. Civil procedure — joinder — non‑joinder where third parties have direct and substantial interest; relief affecting main action cannot be granted without joinder. Legal ethics/public policy — briefed advocate should not be compelled to attest affidavits or give evidence for or against client; dual roles undesirable. Procedure — vagueness and embarrassing pleadings — relief unsupported by facts liable to be dismissed. Security for costs and damages — security orders and damages claims are not properly pursued in this interlocutory application; abuse of court. Costs — where application is vexatious/abusive, costs may be awarded on attorney‑and‑client scale.
|
14 October 2022 |
|
A late, unexplained postponement of an SCA-ordered provisional winding-up was refused as not bona fide.
Company law – provisional winding-up – return date – application for postponement; Postponement principles – bona fides, timeousness, full and satisfactory explanation, prejudice and balance of convenience; Failure to show prospects of success or to particularise disputed indebtedness; Blame on prior attorneys insufficient; Costs on attorney-and-client scale including two counsel where postponement not bona fide.
|
14 October 2022 |
|
|
14 October 2022 |
|
Amended judgment obtained in chambers rescinded due to procedural irregularities and absence of notice to the applicant.
Rule 42(1)(a) and (b) – Rescission and variation of orders – Order erroneously granted in absence of affected party; ambiguity, patent error or omission; rectification of judgment; procedural irregularities (non-enrolment, failure to upload to CaseLines, deficient service/notice); common law rescission; discretion to rescind; costs awarded.
|
14 October 2022 |
|
|
14 October 2022 |
|
|
13 October 2022 |
|
A Rule 38 subpoena issued unilaterally in application proceedings is irregular; Rule 35(13) governs discovery.
Civil procedure — Subpoena duces tecum — Use in application proceedings — Rule 38 relates to securing witness attendance for trial and not to unilateral document procurement in applications. Civil procedure — Discovery in application proceedings — Rule 35(13) provides appropriate mechanism. Civil procedure — Irregular step — Party may not issue Rule 38 subpoena in application proceedings without court's permission. Costs — Costs follow the result; no punitive costs order warranted.
|
13 October 2022 |