|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2024 |
|
|
Appellate court upheld trial court’s deviation from prescribed life sentences; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Criminal law – sentencing – prescribed minimum sentences (s51 Criminal Law Amendment Act) – substantial and compelling circumstances – appellate interference only where sentencing discretion misdirected, disproportionate or vitiated; concurrency of sentences – link between offences; condonation of late appeal.
|
31 December 2024 |
|
Leave to appeal granted against interpretation that Rule 6(5)(b)(iii)(aa) prevents summary-judgment filings between 21 Dec and 7 Jan.
Civil procedure — Uniform Rules of Court — interpretation of Rule 6(5)(b)(iii)(aa) (dies non: 21 December–7 January) — whether exclusion applies to founding affidavits in summary-judgment applications; interplay between Rule 6 and Rule 32 (summary judgment); Rule 30 irregular-step challenge; appealability of interlocutory refusals of summary judgment — leave to appeal granted.
|
31 December 2024 |
|
Applicant slipped on unmarked, incomplete tiling; respondents liable for damages and costs.
Delict — occupier/owner duty to keep premises safe and to warn of defects; proof of warnings/indemnity notices; assessment of credibility and probabilities; causation (but‑for and legal causation); contributory negligence considered and rejected.
|
31 December 2024 |
|
Appeal against life sentence for multi‑person rape and attempted murder dismissed; no substantial and compelling circumstances to depart.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Minimum sentences – Section 51(1)(ii) CLAA – Life imprisonment where rape committed by more than one person; substantial and compelling circumstances required to deviate. Criminal law – Rape – aggravating factors: home invasion, firearm threat, presence of infant, refusal to use protection. Criminal law – Multiple convictions – duplication and concurrency – aggregate sentence not unduly severe where effective sentence is life and terms run concurrently.
|
20 December 2024 |
|
Administrative mismanagement of petitions led to referrals for investigation; one sentence set aside for lack of reasons beyond mandatory minimum.
• Criminal procedure – s309C petitions – administrative delay and misregistration of petitions – impact on petitioners’ rights.
• Sentencing – s51(2) minimum sentences – departure from prescribed minimum requires reasons; failure to give reasons is misdirection.
• Court administration – duties of Registrar and clerks – dereliction of duty, potential misconduct and criminality.
• Remedies – dismissal or granting of petitions on merits notwithstanding administrative failures; referrals for investigation and steps to facilitate appeals/prosecutions.
|
19 December 2024 |
|
Appeal upheld in part: duplicative rape counts quashed; two convictions for repeated rape with grievous bodily harm confirmed and life sentences upheld.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Duplication of convictions – multiple acts of penetration in single encounter should ordinarily be charged as one count per victim to avoid impermissible splitting of charges. Criminal law – Evidence – Consent defence rejected where overwhelming corroborative evidence (victim accounts and medico-legal reports) establish forced repeated penetration and injuries. Sentencing – Prescribed minimum life imprisonment under section 51(1) and Part I of Schedule 2 – no substantial and compelling circumstances found to deviate.
|
19 December 2024 |
|
Lay representation and improperly commissioned affidavits defeated standing and doomed the application.
Practice and procedure — Urgent application — founding affidavit must be properly commissioned (Regulation 4) — affidavits must contain locus standi, jurisdiction and cause of action — companies/NPCs require authorization and must be represented by an attorney or advocate — failure to plead essential factual basis fatal.
|
4 December 2024 |
|
Corporate applicants must litigate through legal practitioners; defective affidavits and lack of authorization justify dismissal.
Urgent application — representation of corporate applicants — an artificial person must litigate through an attorney or advocate; unauthorised natural person cannot represent company/NPC. Founding affidavit defects — non-compliance with Regulation 4(1) and 4(2) (commissioner of oaths formalities) and absence of condonation. Requirements for applications — necessity to plead locus standi, cause of action, jurisdiction and evidentiary material; failure to link papers to interdictal relief. Costs — discretion where respondents served notices but did not participate.
|
4 December 2024 |
|
Application dismissed for lack of authority, improperly commissioned affidavits, absence of locus standi, and no urgency.
Administrative law – urgent interdict and disclosure – requirements for founding affidavit and locus standi; Commissioning of affidavits – Regulation 4(1) compliance; Representation of artificial persons – must be by an admitted attorney or advocate; Urgency – need for explanation for late institution; Competency of relief – connection between documents sought and interdict.
|
3 December 2024 |
|
An urgent interdict failed because the founding affidavit was defective and companies were not lawfully represented, warranting dismissal and punitive costs.
• Civil procedure – founding affidavit – non-compliance with Regulation 4(1) invalidates affidavit.• Corporate representation – artificial persons must be represented by an attorney or advocate; lay representation not permitted.• Locus standi and cause of action – founding affidavit must allege and prove direct, current interest and a legal basis for relief.• Urgent applications – urgency must be genuine; relaunching identical matters may constitute abuse of process.• Costs – punitive attorney-and-client costs including senior counsel for abusing court process.
|
2 December 2024 |
|
Urgent interdict dismissed: applicant lacked standing, proper authorization and a validly commissioned affidavit; costs awarded.
Administrative law; urgent interdict to restrain municipal Executive Council meetings—requirements of locus standi and cause of action; proper commissioning of affidavits (Regulation 4); representation of artificial persons (resolution and legal practitioner requirement); Promotion of Access to Information Act as appropriate remedy; costs order against lay applicant.
|
2 December 2024 |
| November 2024 |
|
|
Rule 43 order cannot be altered without new circumstances; applicant's request dismissed.
Family law - urgent application - Rule 43(6) - Material change in circumstances - Appealability of Rule 43 orders.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
Sale in execution set aside where attorney-purchaser bought property for a grossly inadequate price, despite procedural compliance.
Execution sales – fairness requirement; sale must aim to realise best price. Conflict of interest/self-dealing – purchaser was respondent’s attorney under power of attorney. Procedural compliance (advertising/service) does not cure an unfair, grossly inadequate auction sale. Interdict against transfer and Registrar of Deeds permitted to protect execution debtor’s interest.
|
26 November 2024 |
|
An appeal court will not disturb a trial court’s sentence absent misdirection; ten‑year sentence for attempted murder confirmed.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Appeal against sentence – Appellate interference limited to cases of misdirection or striking disproportion; trial court’s balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors upheld; prior convictions and gang membership relevant to sentence. Criminal law – Attempted murder – deliberate stabbing in custody – seriousness of offence warrants custodial sentence. Firearms Control Act – declaration of unfitness to possess firearms not appealable in absence of separate ground.
|
26 November 2024 |
|
Appeal dismissed: single eyewitness found credible, common purpose established, and sentences upheld.
Criminal law – single-witness evidence – caution and credibility; gang-related violence – identification and corroboration; common purpose doctrine – active association liability; sentencing – pre-trial custody and prescribed minimum sentences; appellate restraint on sentence interference.
|
22 November 2024 |
|
A pending related action does not automatically justify postponing an eviction absent demonstrable prospects of success.
Eviction — postponement and stay — applicant must show cogent grounds and prospects of success; pending related action does not automatically bar eviction proceedings; disputed factual issues must be ventilated in eviction hearing; concurrent hearing of eviction and strike-out applications may be ordered; costs to follow result (party-and-party Scale B).
|
20 November 2024 |
|
A criminal review setting aside conviction for procedural irregularity does not estop defendants from contesting a subsequent civil claim for unlawful detention.
Civil procedure – res judicata / issue estoppel – requirements (idem actor, idem reus, eadem res, eadem causa petendi) – relaxation of requirements only in appropriate cases; Review of criminal conviction – order setting aside conviction for procedural irregularity does not determine civil liability for unlawful detention; Delict – unlawful detention claim requires plaintiff to prove elements of wrongfulness/negligence despite prior review order.
|
20 November 2024 |
|
Court condoned late notice to amend, reinstated claim and granted leave to amend; costs awarded to applicant on Scale B.
Civil procedure – condonation for non‑compliance with court‑ordered amendment period; leave to amend particulars of claim; pleading/exception conceded by applicant; adequacy of explanation for delay (mis‑forwarded email); discretion as to costs (applicant for indulgence bears wasted costs).
|
14 November 2024 |
|
A convicted appellant failed to prove exceptional circumstances for bail pending appeal under section 60(11)(a).
Criminal procedure – Bail pending appeal – Schedule 6 offence – Onus on convicted appellant to prove exceptional circumstances under s60(11)(a); prospects of success/leave to appeal not determinative; State’s non-opposition does not absolve appellant’s onus; appellate interference only if lower court misdirected.
|
14 November 2024 |
|
Plaintiffs awarded R400,000 each for unlawful arrest and detention, plus R10,000 special damages and costs Scale B.
Constitutional and delictual law – unlawful arrest and detention – assessment of quantum for solatium; factors: circumstances of arrest, police conduct, detention conditions, stigma and personal consequences. Interest on unliquidated awards – court discretion as to commencement date and rate. Costs – successful plaintiffs entitled to party-and-party costs (Scale B). Procedural – separation of merits and quantum by agreement; defendant closed case without witnesses.
|
14 November 2024 |
|
Confirmed urgent access order did not constitute an eviction; occupant may remain pending separate eviction proceedings.
Property law – urgent ex parte access orders – distinction between access/interdict and eviction – PIE not engaged where occupant permitted to remain pending eviction proceedings; Sale in liquidation – purchaser in auction acquires ownership absent set-aside of sale; Appealability – confirmed urgent order not final eviction and thus no infringement of PIE requirements at this stage.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Actuarial, evidence‑based assessment awarded substantial loss of earnings; RAF ordered to pay and provide s17(4)(a) undertaking.
Road Accident Fund – assessment of loss of earnings – admissibility of expert reports on affidavit (Rule 38(2)) – actuarial approach preferred where career and income data available – contingencies to reflect impaired employment prospects – section 17(4)(a) undertaking for future medical expenses.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Municipality must notify all affected consumers before disconnecting services; failure to do so justified an interim interdict and costs.
Municipal law – pre-termination notice – consumers (including tenants) – procedural fairness under s33 Constitution and PAJA – application of Joseph – interim interdict against disconnection – municipal by-laws and Credit Control Policy compliance.
|
11 November 2024 |
|
Condonation for late rescission refused; no bona fide defence — application dismissed with attorney-and-client costs.
Civil procedure — Rescission of default judgment — Condonation for late filing — Applicant must give full, reasonable explanation covering whole period of delay — Prospects of success require disclosure of bona fide, sustainable defence — Failure to prosecute and vague averments justify dismissal — Costs on attorney-and-client scale where application is tactical and mala fide.
|
10 November 2024 |
|
Appellate court increased solatium to R30,000 after finding magistrate misdirected in assessing unlawful arrest, detention and assault.
Unlawful arrest and detention — assessment of solatium — appellate interference where trial court misdirected — factors in quantum (circumstances of arrest, motive, conduct, duration, injury, status, medical evidence, comparable awards) — costs on High Court scale for deprivation of liberty cases.
|
6 November 2024 |
|
The applicant's appeal lapsed for failure to re‑enrol within ten days after striking‑off under Rule 67(5A)(a)(ii).
Criminal appeals — Magistrates' Court Rules Rule 67(5A)(a)(ii) — striking‑off and mandatory re‑enrolment within 10 days — failure to re‑enrol causes appeal to lapse — subsequent dates/orders cannot revive appeal — reinstatement requires substantive application and condonation; duties of legal representatives under s309 CPA and Uniform Rule 51.
|
5 November 2024 |
|
Condonation for late appeal filing denied where explanation was inadequate, delay excessive, and prospects of success unaddressed.
Condonation – late filing of notice of appeal – sufficiency of explanation and prospects of success – application of Melane factors – requirement for full explanation per Grootboom – impact of prior non‑compliance and lapse of appeal.
|
5 November 2024 |
|
Court corrected loss-of-earnings award, found compromise legally objectionable, admitted expert affidavits and ordered payment and costs.
Road Accident Fund/Delict — quantification of past and future loss of earnings/earning capacity; admissibility of expert evidence on affidavit (Rule 38(2)); validity and court oversight of compromises (Taylor; Eke); application of contingencies and judicial discretion in actuarial assessments of future loss.
|
1 November 2024 |
| October 2024 |
|
|
Appellate court found police assault proved, admitted expert psychiatric report, awarded R179,231.36 and costs.
Police liability – assault by members of SAPS – admissibility and consideration of pre‑trial agreed expert hearsay report – inadmissible untested respondent evidence – amendment of particulars to include pepper spray and future medical expenses – quantum: general damages and future psychiatric/medical costs.
|
31 October 2024 |
|
No substantial and compelling circumstances justified deviation from prescribed life sentences for multiple rapes; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – sentencing – prescribed minimum sentence (s51(1) CLAA) for rape; substantial and compelling circumstances; absence of physical injury not substantial per s51(3)(aA) and Maila; guilty plea and pre‑trial custody as mitigation; appellate interference only for shocking or materially misguided sentences.
|
31 October 2024 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where applicants admitted arrears and failed to prove security or a bona fide defence to summary judgment.
Instalment sale – summary judgment – default and cancellation – bona fide defence – alleged security (endowment policy) unproven – leave to appeal requires reasonable prospects of success (s17(1)(a) Superior Courts Act).
|
31 October 2024 |
|
Minor’s head injury in RAF claim impaired future earning capacity; court awards R2,843,750, interest, s17(4)(a) undertaking and costs.
Road Accident Fund – admitted liability; minors – head injury with long‑term cognitive, behavioural and disfiguring sequelae; expert evidence on affidavit (Rule 38(2)/LEAA) – multidisciplinary assessments; actuarial valuation of future loss of earnings and application of contingencies; s17(4)(a) RAFA undertaking for future medical expenses; interest and party-and-party costs awarded.
|
31 October 2024 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove medical negligence where missing maternity records rendered timing and causation of neonatal HIE uncertain.
Medical negligence – Birth injury – hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) – missing antenatal and labour records – evidential consequences of absent medical records – burden of proof and inferences – evaluation of conflicting expert opinion.
|
29 October 2024 |
|
Reported
Magistrate’s medical recusal upheld, but magistrate’s order restarting trials de novo was unlawful and set aside.
Judicial recusal – medical incapacity – SARFU objective test for reasonable apprehension of bias and inability to sit.* Limits of magistrates’ powers – magistrate as creature of statute – no power to order trials to commence de novo.* Review – Superior Courts Act s22(1) – gross irregularity where magistrate orders beyond statutory competence.* High Court authority to order fresh trials de novo and to prioritise matters on the roll.* Administrative directions – return of exhibits; notification to Regional Court President, DPP and Magistrate’s Commission.
|
25 October 2024 |
|
An appeal against a prescribed minimum rape sentence fails absent substantial and compelling circumstances by the applicant.
Criminal law – Rape – Minimum sentencing under s 51(2)(b) and Schedule 2 CLLA – deviation requires substantial and compelling circumstances. Sentencing – Appellate interference – no interference absent material misdirection or a sentence so disparate as to be shocking. Sentencing considerations – youth and first‑offender status not automatically substantial and compelling; seriousness and public interest may prevail.
|
24 October 2024 |
|
Whether a binding compromise agreement was formed by conduct and correspondence despite no signed deed.
Contract formation — compromise agreement — consensus ad idem — signatures not required absent prescribed formalities — conduct and correspondence may constitute acceptance — quasi‑mutual assent and reliance — appellate review of magistrate’s factual findings.
|
24 October 2024 |
|
Unlawful arrest and over three-year detention entitled the plaintiff to R2.2 million damages against the defendant.
Administrative law / Constitutional rights – Arrest and detention – Unlawful arrest without reasonable grounds; prolonged detention – State (Minister of Police/SAPS) vicarious/constitutional liability for unlawful deprivation of liberty; default judgment consequences where defendant fails to plead; assessment of solatium/quantum for arbitrary detention.
|
22 October 2024 |
|
Section 55 SORMA does not compel life imprisonment for attempted rape; appellate court substituted fifteen years within regional court limits.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Attempted rape under s55 SORMA – "Liable to" same punishment as completed offence permits judicial discretion; Regional Court sentencing constrained by jurisdictional limits; misdirection in imposing life imprisonment for attempt where no prescribed minimum applies; appellate substitution of sentence within statutory maximum (15 years).
|
21 October 2024 |
|
A contract condition making payment contingent on a grant suspended payment obligations; plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act s3 – purpose of notice satisfied where department received and acted on demand; Contract law – suspensive condition – clause making payment subject to receipt of grant from third party (CATHSSETA) operates to suspend obligations until fulfilment; Burden of proof – party relying on fulfilment of suspensive condition must prove it; Repudiation and damages – no repudiation where precondition for payment unfulfilled.
|
21 October 2024 |
|
Court awards R45,000 solatium for 18 hours 32 minutes of unlawful detention in degrading conditions.
Delict – unlawful detention – computation of unlawful detention period; assessment of solatium for short-period unlawful detention; relevance of detention conditions where arrest lawful; appropriate quantum; costs on High Court scale.
|
21 October 2024 |
|
An accomplice to an armed robbery may be convicted of murder under common purpose when he knowingly foresees possible lethal violence.
Criminal law — Common purpose — Accomplice liability where co‑perpetrator fires weapon during armed robbery; s115(3) plea explanations — limited evidential value; s112(2) statements — part of conspectus of evidence; single‑witness evidence — assessment for trustworthiness; sentencing — no substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from prescribed life sentence for murder.
|
16 October 2024 |
|
Appeal against life sentence for repeated rape of an elderly, vulnerable victim dismissed; no substantial and compelling reasons to deviate.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Minimum sentences – section 51(1) CLAA and Schedule 2 – departure only for substantial and compelling reasons. Rape – multiple penetrations and serious bodily harm against an elderly vulnerable victim – life imprisonment ordinarily prescribed. Appellate review – interference only for misdirection or sentence shockingly inappropriate. Procedural – typographical errors in charge sheet/record do not vitiate sentence where statutory application is clear.
|
11 October 2024 |
|
|
11 October 2024 |
|
An appellate court may antedate resentencing under section 282 where a trial court misdirects in a resentencing exercise.
Criminal law – sentencing – resentencing after appeal – trial court misdirection by mechanically deducting time served – appellate courts’ power to antedate under s 282 Criminal Procedure Act – fairness in antedating; declaration of unfitness to possess firearm (s 103 Firearms Control Act).
|
11 October 2024 |
|
Court awarded R3,922,500 composite damages for 523 days' unlawful detention and malicious prosecution, apportioned 80/20.
Delict — Unlawful arrest and detention — Quantification of solatium for deprivation of liberty; malicious prosecution — liability of prosecuting authority for initiating and continuing prosecution without prima facie evidence; res judicata — limits where Full Court remits quantum; composite awards and apportionment between state organs; factors for quantum: duration, motive, conduct, injuries, status, comparable awards.
|
11 October 2024 |
|
Reported
The defendant is liable for R95,000 for the plaintiff’s 42‑hour unlawful arrest and detention, with interest and High Court costs.
Constitutional law – right to dignity and freedom – unlawful arrest and detention – assessment of general damages for deprivation of liberty. Delict – damages – solatium for unlawful arrest and detention – factors: duration, conditions of detention, injury, missed events, COVID-19 risk, lack of legal access. Interest – prescribed rate from date of service of summons. Costs – party-and-party High Court scale; Scale B (Rule 67A) applicable after 12 April 2024.
|
10 October 2024 |
|
A May 2021 resolution validly conferred an unconditional 50% member interest; member participation and access to accounts were ordered.
Close corporations – validity of member appointment by resolution – whether appointment was conditional or representative – applicability of s46 and s49 Close Corporations Act; procedural rules – late Rule 7(1) challenge to authority to act; non-joinder – when joinder of cessionary is required; remedies – interdict, access to bank accounts and books, production of payment inventory.
|
10 October 2024 |
|
Appeal dismissed: applicant failed to prove new facts or discharge the onus to justify bail for a Schedule 5 offence.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Schedule 5 offence – Section 60(11)(b) onus on accused – New facts application – Section 60(4)(c) and (d) (risk of influencing witnesses; jeopardising justice system) – Section 60(8)(a) (supplying false information) – Appellate review under section 65(4) of Magistrate’s discretion.
|
9 October 2024 |
|
Alleged non‑compliance with Regulation 6 must be objectively justified; council’s minutes showed sufficient basis for precautionary suspension.
Local government — Precautionary suspension — Regulation 6(1) Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers — 'Reason to believe' must be based on objective, justifiable considerations — urgency where alleged non‑compliance with Regulation 6 — council minutes and debate can demonstrate formation of requisite belief.
|
8 October 2024 |
|
Appellate court upheld convictions where complainant’s identification was credible; sentence appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Sexual offences (attempted rape) and robbery – identification evidence – cautionary approach to single witness – prior acquaintance and opportunity to observe – brief illumination by passing vehicle sufficient in context. Evidence – single witness testimony may suffice if satisfactory in all material respects; appellate deference to trial court's factual findings. Criminal procedure – appellant's failure to testify and absence of alternative explanation relevant to assessment of guilt. Sentencing – separate offences with separate intents justify distinct terms; appellate intervention only for misdirection, failure of justice or shockingly inappropriate sentence.
|
8 October 2024 |