|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2025 |
|
|
A municipality and its municipal manager were held in contempt for failing to produce PAIA-requested tender documents and ordered to comply or face sanctions.
Contempt of court; Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) — failure to produce tender documents; civil contempt requirements (order, service, non‑compliance, wilfulness/mala fides); organ of state duty to obey court orders; remedial and coercive measures — affidavits, internal-auditor report, committal/asset sanctions; referral to Auditor‑General and COGTA.
|
30 October 2025 |
|
Applicant awarded R2,382,297 for unlawful arrest, torture-like assaults and sixteen months’ detention; expert affidavits largely admitted.
Delict — Unlawful arrest, assault and detention; admissibility of expert reports under Rule 38(2) (affidavit evidence with limited viva voce requirement); causation — magistrate’s remand does not necessarily break chain of causation for continued detention; quantum — assessment of general damages for prolonged detention and torture-like assaults; actuarial computation of loss of earnings accepted.
|
30 October 2025 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove a lawful contract or necessary material facts; claim for unpaid municipal invoices dismissed.
Contract law – existence of contract; pleadings – material facts and Rule 18(6); burden of proof – animus contrahendi and authority to bind municipality; municipal law – MFMA/irregular expenditure raised as a defence to payment obligations.
|
30 October 2025 |
|
Categorisation letters created enforceable subsidy entitlements; department must pay 2025 amounts and top up any reduced payments.
Education law – Subsidies to independent schools – Subsidy Categorisation Letters as unilateral administrative undertakings – enforceability once payment date falls due; NNSSF s195 payment timelines; impermissibility of retroactive reduction of amounts due; interim relief and procedural orders to expedite review.
|
29 October 2025 |
|
Applicant granted urgent interim interdict restraining respondent from mining pending resolution of related business rescue challenge.
Interim interdict – urgency and condonation – requirements of prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience – business rescue practitioner’s locus to appoint and enforce mining contractor pending challenge – effect of unfulfilled suspensive conditions in competing contractor agreement.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Appellant proved exceptional circumstances under Schedule 6; appellate court granted bail with strict conditions.
Criminal procedure — Bail — Schedule 6 offences — exceptional circumstances under s 60(11)(a) — onus on accused to prove exceptional circumstances on balance of probabilities; Consideration of s 60(4) factors (danger to public, flight risk, witness interference, undermining justice, public order); Relevance and weight of accused’s conduct while previously on bail; Investigating officer’s uncorroborated opinion lacks probative value; Necessity to consider suitable conditions as alternative to incarceration; Appellate interference under s 65(4) where lower court materially misdirects or overlooks important aspects.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
An interim interdict was granted to halt disciplinary hearings where the municipal manager’s reinstatement was legally contested and sub judice.
Administrative law – appointment/reinstatement of municipal manager – compliance with section 54A of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act and related regulations – legality of acts by functionary whose appointment is sub judice. Interim interdict – requirements (Setlogelo) – prima facie right, irreparable harm, absence of adequate alternative, balance of convenience. Urgent procedure – Rule 6(12) – self‑created urgency and reasonable expedition. Labour/disciplinary law – when courts may interdict internal disciplinary proceedings pending judicial determination of appointing authority’s legality. Evidentiary/formalities – initialling of annexures is technical, not jurisdictional.
|
26 October 2025 |
|
Voluntary surrender dismissed for lack of full disclosure, insufficient proof of advantage to creditors and failure to explore NCA remedies.
Insolvency — Voluntary surrender — s 6 Insolvency Act — requirements: insolvency, sufficient realizable property to defray sequestration costs, advantage to creditors, s 4 formalities — ex parte applications require uberrima fides (full and frank disclosure); National Credit Act remedies (s 129, debt review, s 85 referrals, s 86 reckless credit investigations, s 87 relief) may be alternative remedies to sequestration; appellate interference with discretionary exercise limited where discretion exercised judicially.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Warrantless search and seizure found unlawful; spoliatory relief granted and seized items ordered restored.
Criminal Procedure Act s22 — lawfulness of warrantless search and seizure; consent to search; mandament van spolie (spoliatory relief) — requirements and urgency; non-joinder — SARS not a necessary party; credibility of affidavit evidence and material contradictions.
|
22 October 2025 |
|
Second urgent application to dissolve trust struck from the roll for lack of urgency; lis pendens applied.
Urgency — requirements to plead facts rendering matter urgent; concession by Master insufficient to create urgency; lis pendens — pending earlier application between same parties for same relief; discretion as to costs.
|
22 October 2025 |
|
Appeal upheld: speculative risks and public outrage insufficient to deny bail; strict conditions ordered.
Bail appeal – Schedule 5 offences – s60(11)(b) burden – misdirection by magistrate – speculative intelligence and public outrage insufficient to justify detention – presumption of innocence – availability of restrictive bail conditions to address State concerns.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Appointment based on misrepresented competency assessments invalid; council must re-advertise and run a lawful recruitment.
Local government — Appointment of municipal manager — Competency assessments and 2014 Regulations — Authenticity of assessment reports — Illegality and irrationality where Council acts on misrepresented reports — Remedy: remittal and re-advertisement; substitution declined — Joinder of interested shortlisted candidate proper — Costs against municipality.
|
17 October 2025 |
|
Removal of MPAC chair and special meeting set aside for failure to follow standing orders and lack of authority.
Municipal law – committee chair removal – compliance with Council Standing Orders (rules 29, 30 and notice provisions) – authority to represent municipality and depose to affidavits – delegation framework vests litigation authority in municipal manager/executive mayor – validity of special meeting convening and condonation for non-compliance.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
Appeal lapsed for failure to comply with Rule 49; condonation and reinstatement refused; punitive costs ordered.
Procedure – Appeal lapsed – Uniform Rule 49(6)(a) – failure to apply for hearing date within 60 days – condonation and reinstatement refused where non‑compliance is flagrant and explanations inadequate; State litigation policy – duties of State Attorney and client departments; costs – punitive attorney‑and‑client and Scale C orders.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
Use of a faulty IV drip alone did not prove negligence or causation; appeal dismissed with costs.
Medical negligence – defective medical device (intravenous drip) – res ipsa loquitur – onus to prove negligence and causation – admissibility of hearsay statements of treating clinicians – appellate interference limited absent misdirection.
|
15 October 2025 |
|
No substantial and compelling circumstances justified departing from the mandatory life sentence for rape of a child.
Criminal law – Rape of a child – Mandatory life sentence under s 51 CLAA – Substantial and compelling circumstances – Sentencing discretion – Breach of trust – DNA corroboration – Appellate interference only for misdirection or disturbingly inappropriate sentence.
|
15 October 2025 |
|
The appellant's appeal dismissed: evidence supported premeditated murder and mandatory life sentence was appropriate.
Criminal law – murder – premeditation; section 51(1) CLAA (mandatory life) – subjective inquiry into state of mind; appellate review of trial court findings; sentencing discretion and substantial and compelling circumstances.
|
6 October 2025 |