|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2025 |
|
|
Respondent held in contempt for failing to pay court-ordered instalments and obstructing telephonic contact with minor children.
Family law; contempt of court — non-compliance with payment-in-instalments order; obstruction of court-ordered child contact; presumption of wilfulness once existence, knowledge and non-compliance proved; punitive costs and coercive imprisonment order.
|
26 November 2025 |
|
A court order appointing independent trustees can supersede trust-deed nominations and the Master may dispense with security by issuing letters of authority.
Trusts — Court-ordered trustee appointments — Interaction with trust deed nomination provisions and s 7(1) of the Trust Property Control Act; s 6(1) — Master’s letters of authority; Security for trustees — Master’s dispensing with security; Pleading requirements for review applications.
|
25 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal granted on interpretation of section 103(5) of the National Credit Act and its broader public importance.
Leave to appeal — Superior Courts Act s17 test (would another court differ) — Interpretation of National Credit Act s103(5) — Debt review application and whether it purges default — Public importance for consumers and credit providers.
|
24 November 2025 |
|
Statutory 90‑day limitation under Exchange Control Regulations is mandatory; out‑of‑time review cannot be condoned.
Administrative law – Exchange Control Regulations – Regulation 22(D)(b) prescribes mandatory 90‑day period to challenge forfeiture – courts lack power to condone non‑compliance – out‑of‑time review discloses no cause of action; particulars struck out.
|
24 November 2025 |
|
Interim interdict refused where Hong Kong choice‑of‑law undermined enforceability of restraints and client had already switched allegiance.
Restraint of trade – choice of foreign law (Hong Kong) – enforceability of post‑termination restraints – reliance on South African common‑law fiduciary duties – requirements for interim interdict (prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) – abuse of process/unclean hands – client autonomy in commercial relationships.
|
24 November 2025 |
|
Preferred Bidder Guarantee lapsed when the Signed Implementation Agreement lapsed (30 November 2023), so it cannot be called.
Contract interpretation – Bid Validity Period in RFP read with Signed Implementation Agreement – Suspensive conditions and Commercial Close – on‑demand Preferred Bidder Guarantee – lapse of guarantee when underlying Implementation Agreement lapsed – declaratory and interdictory relief to restrain call on guarantee.
|
21 November 2025 |
|
Instituting representative litigation before court certification of a class action is an irregular step and must be set aside.
Procedure — Class actions — Certification is a preliminary requirement; instituting representative proceedings before certification is an irregular step — Court’s inherent power under s173 to regulate procedure — Rule 30(3) relief to set aside proceedings — Interest of justice standard (Mukaddam; Children’s Resource Centre).
|
21 November 2025 |
|
Default judgment rescinded due to defective service and a plausible bona fide defence under Rule 42(1)(a).
Civil procedure – Rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) – defective service at corporate/auditor address – absence precluded – reasonable explanation for default – bona fide defence – prescription – rei vindicatio not available for money – speculative allegations of director’s personal liability.
|
20 November 2025 |
|
Community applicant has standing and urgency; final interdict granted to stop unlawful commercial mining and removal of ore.
Locus standi – community land rights (Remaining Extent and Portion 1) – title deeds, Windeed endorsements and prior court orders sufficient to show direct and substantial interest; Urgency – ongoing unlawful commercial mining, environmental damage and irreplaceable loss of minerals; Re-opening – admission of surveyor affidavits and drone footage responsive to respondents’ challenges; Interdict – clear right, apprehended injury, no adequate alternative remedy satisfied; MPRDA s20 prospecting limitations distinguished from commercial mining.
|
19 November 2025 |
|
RAF not liable where driver intentionally used vehicle to injure; negligence must be pleaded and proven.
Road Accident Fund Act s17 — liability for negligence or other wrongful act — intentional use of vehicle as weapon not an 'accident' — pleading and proof of intention versus negligence — onus of proof and adverse inference from non-production of witnesses.
|
19 November 2025 |
|
Goodwill of a filling station vests in the lessor; a majority trustee resolution can validly authorise urgent interdict proceedings.
Lease and goodwill – ownership of business goodwill at termination of lease – goodwill attaches to premises/licence and vests in lessor; Trusts – trustee resolutions – majority decisions under trust deed valid to bind trust (Shepstone & Wylie ZACC 2025); Urgent interdict – urgency, locus standi and reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm established.
|
19 November 2025 |
|
A third‑party payment into a debtor’s credit account can interrupt prescription if it objectively acknowledges the debtor’s liability.
Prescription — interruption by express or tacit acknowledgement (s 14(1) Prescription Act) — objective test — payment by third party may interrupt if made by debtor or debtor’s agent — agency may be inferred from conduct and introduction — onus on creditor to prove interruption on a balance of probabilities.
|
18 November 2025 |
|
Whether an order should remain operative pending appeal where the respondent continues levying an unlawful cleansing charge.
Section 18(3) Superior Courts Act – exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm – interim maintenance of judgment pending appeal – municipality unlawfully levying cleansing tariff – retrospective and double charging – enforcement of court orders – costs on attorney-and-client scale including senior counsel.
|
18 November 2025 |
|
Applicants lacked standing for anti‑dissipatory relief; urgency self‑created and share transfers prima facie defeated their claim.
Civil procedure — Urgency — self‑created urgency and delay — Rule 6(12); Company law — transfer of shares by cession and share register prima facie proof of ownership; Locus standi — former shareholders lacking standing to obtain anti‑dissipatory relief where transfers recorded; Interim relief — requirements for anti‑dissipatory interdict.
|
17 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal granted to SCA on forfeiture and agent‑liability issues under the Customs and Excise Act; costs reserved to appeal.
Customs law – Agent liability under s99(2) – Bill of entry and detention – Forfeiture under s88(2)(a) – Leave to appeal (s17 Superior Courts Act) – Questions of law of public importance affecting clearing agents.
|
17 November 2025 |
|
The applicant’s business rescue application was dismissed; the respondent was found unable to pay and placed in final liquidation.
Company law — Business rescue — Section 131(4)(a) — "Reasonable prospect" of rescue requires factual, substantiated grounds; speculative assertions insufficient — Liquidation — inability to pay debts; provisional winding‑up confirmed.
|
17 November 2025 |
|
Court granted interim interdict preserving applicants' status quo pending rescission and review of petroleum site and retail licences.
Interim interdict — urgency; rescission under Uniform Rule 42(1)(a) for non-disclosure of material facts; administrative review under PAJA; standing as affected party; surrender of site/retail licences; preservation of status quo pending appeal; propriety of answering affidavit.
|
17 November 2025 |
|
Applicants failed to establish good cause for rescission of a properly obtained default judgment; rescission and stay refused.
Civil procedure — Rescission of default judgment — Rule 42(1) inapplicable where judgment properly obtained — Common-law good cause test (reasonable explanation, bona fide application, bona fide defence) — Bare allegation of miscalculated interest and in duplum rule insufficient — Stay of execution refused.
|
17 November 2025 |
|
Court dismissed review: postponement of parole for 12 months was a lawful, rational exercise of ministerial discretion.
Correctional Services Act s136(1)-(3) – eligibility to be considered for parole v. entitlement to parole; Ministerial discretion under Act 8 of 1959 s65; review grounds: irrationality, failure to apply mind; parole postponement for rehabilitation measures and victim tracing.
|
17 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where motion was dismissed for substantial factual disputes requiring trial and the appeal threshold was unmet.
Procedure — Rule 6(5)(g) dismissal where disputes of fact incapable of resolution on affidavit; Plascon-Evans application; leave to appeal threshold under s17 Superior Courts Act; motion vs action; costs order.
|
17 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where genuine disputed facts made motion proceedings unsuitable; matter to proceed to trial; costs for respondent.
Rule 6(5)(g) — dismissal of motion where disputes of fact require oral evidence; Plascon-Evans rule in motion proceedings; Superior Courts Act s17 — high threshold for leave to appeal; dismissal without prejudice to action; costs awarded to respondent.
|
17 November 2025 |
|
No legitimate expectation or reviewable unfairness found in SANDF’s refusal to award a CSS contract; appeal dismissed.
Administrative law – legitimate expectation – internal policy and communications must be clear and unambiguous to create entitlement; Military Ombud – investigative function and review under s13 of Military Ombud Act and PAJA – no reviewable procedural unfairness or irrationality where selection based on pending disciplinary status and policy compliance.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
Default Rule 69 Scale A applies unless objective complexity or value justifies higher scale; this minor’s RAF claim merits Scale B.
Costs — party-and-party advocates' fees — Rules 67A and 69 — Scale A default; Scale B/C only where objective factors (complexity, value, importance) justify departure — seniority of counsel and features common to RAF third‑party claims not decisive.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
Compel application under Rules 35(12) and 35(14) dismissed for speculative, unsupported document requests.
Civil procedure – Rule 35(12) production – documents directly or indirectly referenced in affidavits – Rule 35(14) limited to actions and requires Rule 35(13) direction for applications – discretion to refuse production where request speculative or amounts to fishing expedition.
|
13 November 2025 |
|
s163 buy-out granted where related person’s conduct and deadlock unfairly prejudiced and obstructed shareholder/director.
Companies Act s163 – shareholder buy-out – related person under s2(2)(d) (ability to materially influence) – validity of share transfer and standing – deadlock and oppressive/unfairly prejudicial conduct – discretionary s163(2) buy-out remedies and amendment of constitutional documents.
|
12 November 2025 |
|
Single‑witness credibility upheld; delay due to threats acceptable; prior relationship does not imply consent; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law — Sexual offences — Rape — Single‑witness testimony — credibility and Sauls test; delay in reporting explained by threats; prior relationship does not amount to consent; minimum sentence confirmed.
|
12 November 2025 |
|
Whether an investigative report is part of the rule 53(1)(b) record or must be accessed under PAIA.
Administrative law – judicial review procedure – rule 53(1)(b) requires despatch of record of proceedings preceding a decision; investigative report is a decision, not part of the rule 53 record – rule 30A remedies for non-compliance unavailable where no failure under rule 53(1)(b) – PAIA is the proper route for access to reports; rule 53(1) may not be used to circumvent PAIA.
|
11 November 2025 |
|
Life imprisonment imposed under section 51(1) for domestic murder; no substantial and compelling circumstances found.
* Criminal law – Minimum sentences – Murder in domestic-violence context – application of section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act – substantial and compelling circumstances. * Sentencing – aggravating factors: commission in presence of minor children, use of service firearm, violation of domestic trust, absence of genuine remorse. * Sentencing – mitigation: first offender, age, employment, familial responsibilities – insufficient to justify deviation. * Ancillary orders – Firearms Control Act (s103) fitness and search/seizure; victim participation in parole processes (s299A).
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Applicant granted urgent interim interdict restraining respondent’s trademark infringement and dissemination of injurious falsehoods pending trial.
Trade marks – interim interdict – prima facie right under registered mark; urgency and irreparable harm to goodwill; injurious falsehoods and dissemination of disparaging statements; preliminary objections (jurisdiction and deponent’s authority) dismissed; delivery-up order.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Reliance on a single 204 witness corroborated by recovered property sustained convictions; sentence appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – robbery with aggravating circumstances; single witness evidence (s 208/section 204) and cautionary rule; corroboration by recovery and identification of stolen property; doctrine of recent possession; minimum sentences (s 51(2) Criminal Law Amendment Act); appellate review of factual findings and sentencing discretion.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Application for leave to appeal dismissed: deponent deemed authorised, Rule 7 not properly invoked, no reasonable prospects of success.
* Procedure – Authority to depose – deponent need not exhibit express power to depose; challenges to authority governed by Rule 7. * Civil procedure – Rule 7 remedy – proper procedure required to dispute authority; mere affidavit argument insufficient. * Execution – rule 46A(8)(i) – court will not order alternative sale procedure absent proper pleadings, evidence or authority. * Appeals – Superior Courts Act s17 – leave to appeal requires reasonable prospects of success or compelling reason.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Court awards R250,000 general damages to applicant for healed, non‑disabling gunshot injury after default judgment.
* Delict — assessment of general damages for non‑disabling gunshot injury; * Quantum — reliance on objective medical evidence and comparable authorities to avoid disproportionate awards; * Default judgment — liability established by lack of defence; * Procedural note — irregular service of process observed but did not alter quantum determination.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Passenger proved driver’s negligence; RAF ordered to pay R9,450,860 for loss of earnings, general damages postponed.
Road Accident Fund – passenger claimant – proof of negligence by insured driver – admission of loss of control – RAF vicarious liability 100% – medico-legal evidence of mild traumatic brain injury and permanent neurocognitive impairment (sleeper effect) – actuarial calculation of loss of earnings with 15% contingency – general damages postponed sine die – s17(4)(a) undertaking for future medical costs.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
Defendants raised triable issues on indebtedness and notice; summary judgment dismissed and costs in the cause.
Summary judgment — triable issue — disputed account/certificate of balance and alleged non‑receipt or improper service of default notices — sufficiency of opposing affidavit; application for special execution (Rule 46A) refused in summary judgment context.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
Court exercised discretion to make a settlement collective agreement an order and binding on union members under s23(1)(d) LRA.
* Labour law – collective agreements – settlement agreement as collective agreement – whether capable of being made an order of court under court’s discretion.
* Labour law – s23(1)(d) LRA – when collective agreements bind non‑members – identification, express binding, majority in bargaining unit.
* Contract/Labour law – non‑variation clauses – compromise resolving litigation is not necessarily an amendment of the main agreement.
* Civil procedure – settlement after judgment – court’s discretion to make compromises an order and effect of parties’ procedural conduct on settlement validity.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
Court admitted prior judgments, affidavits and correspondence as hearsay exceptions under s 3(1)(a) and (c) of the LEA Act.
Evidence — hearsay — judgments as public record not hearsay; prior affidavits and correspondence ordinarily hearsay; admissibility under s 3(1)(a) (consent) and s 3(1)(c) (interests of justice) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988; motion proceedings and inability to obtain confirmatory affidavits; probative value versus prejudice; admission of whole founding and replying affidavits including annexures.
|
4 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused: respondents failed to show a reasonable prospect of success and could not raise new oral grounds.
* Appeal — Leave to appeal under s 17(1)(a)(i) Superior Courts Act — applicant must show reasonable prospect of success (Mkhitha).
* Constitutional/common law development — exercise of discretion in strong sense; overturned only in limited circumstances (Mwelase).
* Jurisdiction — distinction between procedural service of process and substantive jurisdictional requirements; challenge to Tribunal’s power to penalise peregrinus under s 167 FSRA raised but not shown to have reasonable prospects.
* Civil procedure — inadmissibility of new grounds raised orally at leave hearing (Fischer).
|
4 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused: section 130 challenge permitted despite moratorium; settlement and conduct established creditor standing and justified costs.
* Company law – Business rescue – Section 130 challenges to commencement/validity of business rescue not barred by section 133 moratorium.
* Standing – affected person/creditor – court-sanctioned settlement and director’s consent confer creditor status.
* Procedure – consent/unanimous assent can cure absence of formal shareholder resolutions for sole-active-shareholder companies.
* Insolvency practice – court-sanctioned sale is not parate executie; BRP’s failure to involve creditor justified setting aside rescue and personal costs order.
* Evidence – new factual reconciliations generally inadmissible on appeal if available earlier.
|
4 November 2025 |
|
Applicant's request for anticipatory bail denied; appeal refused for lack of reasonable prospects and insufficient basis for an interdict.
* Criminal procedure – anticipatory (pre-arrest) bail – not recognised in South African law; * Interdict – requirements and burden on applicant in unopposed applications; * Civil procedure – unopposed papers do not automatically entitle applicant to default judgment; court must be satisfied relief is competent; * Leave to appeal – s17(1)(a) Superior Courts Act – reasonable prospects of success / interest of justice.
|
4 November 2025 |
|
Court declines to infer a common‑law duty on banks to protect the tax authority; FSRA s278 supplies a statutory remedy.
Banking law; pure economic loss; wrongfulness and legal duty; FICA and Exchange Control Regulations not creating private claims; FSRA s278 statutory cause of action; causation (factual pleaded; legal for trial); exception.
|
3 November 2025 |
|
Court granted urgent business rescue under s131, finding reasonable prospects of rescue despite financial distress.
Business rescue – section 131(1) and 131(4)(a) – urgency – whether urgency self‑created – financially distressed and insolvency not a bar to rescue – reasonable prospect of rescue (factual foundation) – appointment of interim business rescue practitioners – costs order.
|
3 November 2025 |
|
Particulars of claim omitting compliance with an escrow condition precedent and adequate quantification are excipiable.
* Civil procedure – Exception – Particulars of claim must disclose a cause of action and contain material facts; omission renders pleading excipiable.
* Contract – Condition precedent – Pleading must allege compliance with linked agreements (escrow) before relying on the SLA.
* Contract – Fictitious completion – Requires factual foundation including readiness to perform and compliance with conditions precedent.
* Civil procedure – Pleading vagueness and quantification – Damages/contractual claims require proper, non-speculative quantification.
* Costs – Exception upheld despite late filing of exceptions; plaintiff ordered to pay costs including two counsel (Scale C).
|
3 November 2025 |
|
Liquidation refused where creditor’s acceleration was premature and the company bona fide disputed and rebutted inability to pay.
* Companies Act — winding up — s344(f) and s345 — demand and deemed inability to pay — bona fide dispute as a defence.
* Acceleration of debt — whether creditor entitled to call up full indebtedness where parties agreed deferment and payment followed.
* Civil procedure — liquidation not appropriate to resolve bona fide disputes about existence/amount of debt.
* Evidence — applicant may not introduce new grounds for relief for the first time in replying affidavit.
* Just and equitable winding up — not established where commercial solvency shown.
|
3 November 2025 |
|
Personal mitigation did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances to avoid prescribed life and 15‑year sentences.
Criminal law — Sentencing — Minimum sentences under s 51(1) and (2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 — Test for substantial and compelling circumstances (Malgas; Vilakazi; Dodo) — Personal mitigation (youth, orphanhood, substance abuse, first‑offender status, pre‑trial detention) insufficient against brutal gang murder and aggravated robbery — Prescribed life and prescribed term imposed; concurrent sentences; ancillary Firearms Control Act orders.
|
3 November 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal and cross-appeal to the SCA granted on prosecution title, s24G evidence, s34(3) competency and sentencing issues.
Environmental law; private prosecution; NEMA s33 (private prosecution requirements) and s34(3) (post-conviction monetary/compensation enquiry); admissibility of s24G applications and self‑incrimination; ECA s22/s29(4) offences; sentencing review and statutory interpretation (s29(4), GN R1182, s34B); leave to appeal to SCA granted by agreement.
|
3 November 2025 |
| October 2025 |
|
|
Applicant entitled to restitution under condictio indebiti where respondent retained mistaken payments and failed to prove agency.
* Restitution – unjust enrichment (condictio indebiti) – elements: erroneous payment, absence of legal cause, enrichment and impoverishment. * Agency defence – burden to prove mandate and transfer to principal; failure to provide proof leads to liability. * Enrichment assessed at time of receipt; subsequent dissipation does not negate restitution obligation. * Interest and costs awarded where condictio indebiti succeeds.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Uncontested medico-legal evidence established serious cognitive and physical sequelae; applicant awarded R6,855,600 for future loss of earnings and RAF undertaking ordered.
* Personal injury – future loss of earnings – multi-disciplinary medico-legal evidence led by affidavit under Rule 38(2) accepted where respondent in default; * Assessment of pre- and post-accident earning potential using Paterson grading and actuarial calculation; * Discount for contingencies – 50% applied where applicant rendered a vulnerable, unequal competitor in the labour market; * Order for section 17(4)(a) undertaking for future medical and related expenses; * General damages postponed sine die; costs to follow outcome.
|
29 October 2025 |
|
An exception to a bank’s amended declaration as vague and embarrassing was dismissed; certificates of balance were held sufficient.
Civil procedure — exception for vagueness and embarrassment — certificate of balance sufficiency; bank claims after winding‑up; differing certificate dates and amounts; multiple suretyship documents and nomenclature; interest calculation queries resolvable from principal agreement; onus on excipient to show prejudice; attorney‑and‑client costs recoverable under suretyship.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Necessity is not a defence to breach of contract; unpleaded defences in affidavits are generally inadmissible.
Contract — breach — defendant provided unauthorised additional accommodation and received overpayment — whether necessity is a defence to breach of contract — necessity negates wrongfulness (relevant in delict/criminal law) but is not a defence to contractual breach — pleading requirements for defences in summary judgment — unpleaded defences raised in answering affidavit treated as afterthoughts and generally inadmissible.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Particulars of a suretyship claim read holistically disclosed a cause of action; exception dismissed, costs awarded attorney-and-own-client.
* Civil procedure – Exceptions – sufficiency of particulars – pleadings read holistically and benevolently; evidence of breach procedure for trial, not for exception.
* Contract law – Suretyship – distinction between principal agreement and personal suretyship; surety liable for shortfall after repossession.
* Remedies – creditor’s election to cancel and claim damages permissible.
* Costs – contractual clause entitling successful party to attorney-and-own-client costs upheld.
|
22 October 2025 |