Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

High Court of South Africa KwaZulu-Natal, Durban

The KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court of South Africa is a superior court of law with general jurisdiction over the KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa. The main seat of the division is at Pietermaritzburg, while a subordinate local seat at Durban has concurrent jurisdiction over the coastal region of the province.

9 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
9 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
December 2012
Firstrand Bank Ltd v Wayrail Investments (Pty) Ltd (684/2012) [2012] ZAKZDHC 91 (20 December 2012)
Reported
Whether "solvent" under Part G and Item 9 includes both actual (balance‑sheet) and commercial (cash‑flow) solvency.
Companies Act 2008 — Part G and Item 9 Schedule 5 — meaning of "solvent": includes both actual (balance-sheet) and commercial (cash-flow) solvency; transitional application of Chapter 14 of previous Act (section 345) preserved; failed business rescue and practitioner’s standing to apply for liquidation; disputes on account debits not necessarily requiring oral evidence; narrow judicial discretion to refuse winding-up.
 20 December 2012
S v Ndawonde (CC 124/2012) [2012] ZAKZDHC 89 (11 December 2012)
Reported
A single accomplice's identification, diminished suspicion by prior indemnity and corroborated details, can suffice for conviction.
Criminal law – accomplice and single-witness evidence – cautionary rule as a guide not a rigid rule – effect of indemnity on distrust of accomplice testimony – identification evidence and corroboration – section 208 and section 204 considerations.
 11 December 2012
November 2012
OMM Design Workshop CC v Segal and Another (828/2012) [2012] ZAKZDHC 84 (29 November 2012)
Arbitrator lawfully allowed amendment; arbitration clause construed broadly and application dismissed with costs.
Arbitration — scope of reference — whether an arbitrator exceeds powers by allowing amendment outside originally declared dispute — s 33(1)(b) Arbitration Act 42 of 1965.* Contract interpretation — arbitration clause construed purposively; declaration of dispute does not require hyper‑technical narrowness where parties left scope undefined.* Association of Arbitrators’ Rules — Rule 17.1 permits amendment or supplementation of statements of claim unless inappropriate due to delay or prejudice.* Arbitration Act s 3(2)(c) — high onus to show "good cause" that arbitration agreement should cease to have effect; "very strong case" required.* Jurisdiction — court of place where arbitration agreement concluded may review arbitral decisions.
 29 November 2012
Mahogany Ridge 2 Property Owners Association v Unlawful Occupiers of Lot 13113 Pinetown and Others (2673/2011) [2012] ZAKZDHC 66 (7 November 2012)
Reported
7 November 2012
October 2012
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v R-Bay Logistics CC (4165/2012) [2012] ZAKZDHC 69 (31 October 2012)
Reported
Transitional Company Act: "solvent" includes commercial solvency; creditor established winding-up under old Act; dispute not bona fide.
Company law – Transitional provisions – Item 9 of Schedule 5 to the new Companies Act – Chapter 14 of old Companies Act continues to govern winding-up of insolvent companies pending new legislation. "Solvent"/"insolvent" – include commercial insolvency (inability to pay debts as they fall due) as well as referent to actual insolvency depending on context. Creditor's locus standi – s346(1)(b) permits reliance on contingent/prospective claims. Close Corporations Act s69 – demand and non-payment prima facie establish inability to pay. Disputed debt – respondent must show bona fide dispute on reasonable grounds to defeat winding-up application.
 31 October 2012
September 2012
KZN Oils (Pty) Ltd v Padayachee (2011/2012) [2012] ZAKZDHC 55 (27 September 2012)
Summary judgment refused where monetary claim depended on rectification and defendant raised a bona fide triable issue.
Civil procedure – Summary judgment – Competency where claim depends on rectification of written agreement – Summary judgment inappropriate if defendant raises bona fide triable issue about the true terms; condonation granted for late opposing affidavit.
 27 September 2012
July 2012
Business Partners Ltd v Yellow Star Properties 1061 (Pty) Ltd (7188/2011) [2012] ZAKZDHC 96 (17 July 2012)
A Rule 10(3) joinder notice is a "process" under s15(1) of the Prescription Act and its service interrupts prescription.
Prescription Act s15(1),(2),(6) – meaning of "process"; Rule 10(3) Notice of Joinder – whether it is a process interrupting prescription; joinder application as first step in enforcing monetary claim; authority: Waverly, Murray & Roberts, Garrett; Naidoo disagreed.
 17 July 2012
June 2012
Afonso NO and Another v Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc and Others (13871/2011) [2012] ZAKZDHC 40 (29 June 2012)
Where a statutory assessment falls within Rule 48’s ambit parties must follow Rule 48 or obtain full condonation; failure warranted dismissal.
Administrative law – Review of professional body assessment – Applicability and mandatory use of Rule 48 where s 74(5) Attorneys Act applies. Civil procedure – Rule 48 procedure for taxation reviews – necessity of stated case, prescribed timetable, and condonation for non-compliance. Procedural law – Delay and condonation – requirements for satisfactory explanation and prospects of success before condonation granted. Costs – failed review dismissed with costs.
 29 June 2012
March 2012
Visser v Visser (15088/2009) [2012] ZAKZDHC 16 (29 March 2012)
Reported
Where liability is unchallenged, quantum alone was assessed; an unaccepted Rule 34(1) offer does not fix minimum liability.
Delict — Actio de pauperie — liability admitted; quantum only; assessment of future medical/psychological expenses and contingency for future scar‑revision surgery; general damages for facial scarring of a child; Rule 34(1) offer to settle — unaccepted unconditional offer does not fix defendant’s liability or constitute acknowledgment of debt; costs follow the successful plaintiff, including specified experts.
 29 March 2012