|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| February 2026 |
|
|
Whether a high court may condone a late CSOS Act appeal and whether the respondent failed to reasonably accommodate the applicant.
Community Schemes Ombud Service Act s 57(2) — interpretation of statutory time limits — peremptory versus directory wording — implied condonation power; access to courts (s 34) and s 39(2) interpretative duty; reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities — substantive equality and PEPUDA; competent relief under CSOS Act (s 39(6)(f), s 36(6)(d), s 39(4)(d)).
|
12 February 2026 |
|
Reconsideration under s 17(2)(f) refused; no new evidence or grave failure of justice shown and combined claims not proven unlawful.
Superior Courts Act s 17(2)(f) – referral/reconsideration – threshold requires grave failure of justice or disrepute; Rule 45A – stay of execution; RAF Act s 17(5) – validity of combined/global hospital claims; Health Professions regulatory rules – invoicing and fee‑sharing issues; admission of new evidence on reconsideration; mootness where execution sale concluded.
|
11 February 2026 |
|
The applicant’s appeal succeeded: courts may not abolish the once‑and‑for‑all damages rule; legislative reform required.
Delict – measure of damages – once‑and‑for‑all rule – courts may not abolish lump‑sum damages for future care absent legislative reform; s 39(2) and s 173 considered; public‑healthcare remedy and undertaking to pay; separation of powers; children’s rights; fiscal and administrative consequences.
|
11 February 2026 |
|
Reconsideration refused; hearsay inadmissible; disputed payment taxable; 90% penalty upheld.
Practice and procedure – s 17(2)(f) Superior Courts Act – referral for reconsideration – exceptional circumstances/grave failure of justice threshold; Tax law – burden of proof under s 82 Income Tax Act – whether foreign deposit was taxable income or repayment of shareholder loan; Evidence – hearsay and s 3 Law of Evidence Amendment Act; Administrative/penalty discretion – review of 90% additional tax imposed by SARS and Tax Court’s exercise of discretion.
|
6 February 2026 |
|
Reconsideration refused: no exceptional circumstances to disturb interim suspension for serious trust‑account misconduct.
Legal practice – disciplinary, sui generis proceedings under Legal Practice Act – trust‑account mismanagement, manipulated audit reports, failure to produce records – test for interim suspension; Superior Courts Act s 17(2)(f) – reconsideration of refusal of leave to appeal; exceptional circumstances/compelling reasons; costs on attorney and client scale.
|
6 February 2026 |
|
Applicant failed to establish reasonable prospects that future loss of earnings was proven; special leave dismissed.
Delict – Road Accident Fund – future loss of earnings – probative value of expert evidence – outdated clinical assessment and untested hearsay report – necessity of employer evidence and applicant’s personal testimony – special leave to appeal requiring reasonable prospects and special circumstances.
|
6 February 2026 |
|
President alone determines exceptional circumstances under s 17(2)(f); court reconsiders the two‑judge refusal on merits, referral dismissed.
Practice and procedure — s 17(2)(f) Superior Courts Act — President’s exclusive discretion to refer decisions for reconsideration — court’s role on referral is to reconsider two-judge decision on merits, not to re‑determine whether exceptional circumstances exist — earlier SCA authority treating exceptional circumstances as a jurisdictional fact for the court overruled; liquidation — default judgment, rescission and peremption; de bonis propriis costs orders require opportunity to be heard.
|
4 February 2026 |
|
Whether a company may claim confidentiality over its entire annual financial statements under s 212 of the Companies Act.
Company law – Companies Act s 212 – confidentiality claims for information submitted to the Commission – limited exception to statutory transparency – claimants must give cogent, itemised reasons – high Public Interest Score increases transparency obligations – unilateral redaction of mandatory disclosures prohibited.
|
4 February 2026 |
| January 2026 |
|
|
Appellant’s disclaimers did not bind respondent; CPA and public‑policy and agency principles defeat the indemnity.
Delict; exclusionary clauses; Consumer Protection Act ss 49 and 58; agency (actual, implied, ostensible); quasi‑mutual assent/ticket cases; interpretation of indemnity clauses; contra bonos mores/public policy.
|
27 January 2026 |
|
Reconsideration refused; premises owner liable where outsourcing cleaning lacked adequate supervision.
Practice and procedure – reconsideration under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act – stringent threshold: grave failure of justice or administration of justice in disrepute required. Delict – premises liability – slip and fall on spillage – plaintiff need only prove circumstances of fall and reasonable care (Probst/Cenprop) to raise inference of negligence. Delegation to independent contractor does not automatically absolve owner; owner retains residual/non-delegable duty to ensure reasonable systems and supervision (Chartaprops and Langley Fox considered). Employer/contractor oversight, monitoring systems and prompt remedial action central to liability determination.
|
26 January 2026 |
|
SAHRA failed to prove that privately owned items were 'heritage objects' under the Heritage Act; appeal dismissed with costs.
Heritage law – National Heritage Resources Act s 32 and Declarations – statutory 'deeming' of heritage objects – evidential burden to show items are heritage objects – limits of export control versus property rights – clarity requirement (s 5(3)).
|
22 January 2026 |
|
Reconsideration refused: s172(1)(b) discretion properly exercised denying profit to contractors in unlawful procurement.
Constitutional law – s 172(1)(b) remedial discretion – invalid public procurement contracts – whether contractor entitled to profit – no profit from unlawful conduct; s 17(2)(f) Superior Courts Act – reconsideration of refusal of special leave to appeal; procurement law – s 217 Constitution and Treasury Regulations; debatement of accounts as remedy.
|
16 January 2026 |
|
Whether s40(a) of POCA requires issuance only, or both issuance and service within 90 days, to keep a preservation order alive.
POCA s40(a) — meaning of "pending" — whether issuance only or issuance plus service within 90 days required; preservation orders; in rem forfeiture proceedings; service and notice requirements; property-rights and constitutional safeguards.
|
14 January 2026 |
|
Applicant’s constitutional challenge to adjudicator’s power dismissed; unit owners declared members and levy disputes remitted for fresh adjudication.
Community Schemes Ombud Service Act — s 39(1)(c) and (e) — power to declare contributions unreasonable — constitutional validity, scope and limits; administrative law — review for irrationality, failure to consider relevant evidence and omission to decide issues; membership of homeowners’ association — effect of title conditions, settlement agreement and articles; interest on arrears — contractual vs prescribed rates; costs de bonis propriis for unnecessary record inclusion.
|
14 January 2026 |
|
SANRAL’s adoption and retrospective application of increased levies held to be administrative action and unlawful for procedural non‑compliance.
Administrative law; State-owned entity (SANRAL) exercising public power; Policy adoption and levy increases constitute administrative action under PAJA; Mandatory publication and public participation requirements; Ineffective internal remedy under s57 where Minister failed to prescribe procedures; Review and remittal; Procedural fairness and principle of legality.
|
12 January 2026 |
|
A contingent accrual claim does not confer a proprietary occupier’s right; reconsideration under s17(2)(f) denied.
s 17(2)(f) Superior Courts Act — reconsideration threshold (grave failure of justice/administration of justice in disrepute); Matrimonial Property Act — accrual claim contingent until dissolution, not a proprietary right of occupation; Doctrine of notice inapplicable to contingent accrual claims; PIE Act — eviction may be just and equitable where spouse has no vested right; Procedure — proper form of order when jurisdictional threshold not met (confirmation vs striking off roll).
|
8 January 2026 |
| December 2025 |
|
|
Reconsideration of a provisional punitive costs order refused; punitive costs against the second applicant made final.
Civil procedure — Reconsideration of costs order — Whether applicant showed cause to vary provisional punitive (attorney-and-client) costs — Unconscionable conduct justifying punitive costs — Costs of reconsideration awarded on party-and-party scale.
|
22 December 2025 |
|
Whether refusal to accept unsworn mitigation vitiated sentence and whether 41-year cumulative sentence was shockingly inappropriate.
Criminal procedure — s 274 CPA — mitigation of sentence — unsworn statements from counsel may be refused; accused must be warned and may elect to give sworn evidence — appellate interference limited to material misdirection or 'shocking' disparity — cumulative effect of consecutive sentences must be considered; concurrency warranted where offences closely linked.
|
19 December 2025 |
|
Error in applying special leave test justified reconsideration and leave to appeal given public importance and overlapping related appeal.
Superior Courts Act s 17(2)(f) — reconsideration of petition judges’ refusal when exceptional circumstances exist; distinction between ordinary leave (s 17(1)) and special leave (s 16(1)(b)); administrative action and PAJA; constitutionality and delegation under Regulation 7(1) of RAF Regulations; public interest and overlap with related appeals.
|
19 December 2025 |
|
Applicants failed to show exceptional circumstances for reconsideration and did not establish grounds for rescission of default judgments.
Superior Courts Act s17(2)(f) – reconsideration – exceptional‑circumstances threshold; Uniform Rules r 31(5)/r 31(2)(b) – default judgment – rescission requires reasonable explanation and bona fide defence with prima facie prospects; rule 42 – no relief where orders not erroneously sought or granted; condonation and undue delay.
|
19 December 2025 |
|
Child habitually resident in Switzerland; father’s custody recognised; mother’s retention wrongful; ordered returned under Hague Convention.
Hague Convention (1980) – habitual residence – child of unmarried parents – parental rights by operation of law (Italian law) – recognition under Swiss PILA and 1996 Hague Convention – wrongful retention under Article 3 – Article 13 defences (consent/acquiescence; grave risk) – return ordered with protective, practical conditions.
|
18 December 2025 |
|
Applicant businesses had direct and substantial own-interest standing and did not unreasonably delay instituting PAJA review proceedings.
Constitutional law – own-interest standing under s 38; administrative justice – PAJA s 7(1) limitation and s 9 condonation; review of municipal property alienation, rezoning and environmental authorisation; entitlement to reasons and public-participation safeguards.
|
18 December 2025 |
|
s 54(2) protects a bona fide purchaser from a member’s lack of authority; special leave granted only to contest punitive costs de bonis propriis.
Close corporations – s 46(b)(iv) – disposal of immovable property without required member consent – interaction with s 54(2) protecting third-party transactions; bona fide purchaser; rei vindicatio and locus standi of executor; costs de bonis propriis – requirements and procedural fairness (audi) in costs adjudication.
|
17 December 2025 |
|
Reconsideration dismissed as moot after fixed‑term employment contract expired; applicants ordered to pay costs.
Civil procedure — Reconsideration under s 17(2)(f) Superior Courts Act — Mootness — Fixed‑term employment contract expired by effluxion of time — s 16(2)(a)(i) appeal may be dismissed if decision would have no practical effect — Section 34 (access to courts) not a compelling reason to hear moot appeal — Requirement of 'grave failure of justice' under s 17(2)(f) not met — Costs follow result.
|
17 December 2025 |
|
Solvent spouse failed to discharge the onus under s 21(2); registration alone insufficient against insolvent’s creditors.
Insolvency Act s 21(2)(c),(e) – onus on solvent spouse to prove title valid against insolvent’s creditors – registration not conclusive; real agreement and beneficial ownership assessed – proceeds of sale may form part of insolvent estate if solvent spouse fails to discharge onus; distinction between s 21 remedy and trustee’s remedies against impeachable transactions.
|
15 December 2025 |
|
|
15 December 2025 |
|
A contractor claiming lost profits must prove saved expenses with full accounting disclosure; failure defeats the damages claim.
Contract law – tender/appointment interpreted contextually – order-based, rotational appointment limited to Annexure A; Damages – claim for loss of profit requires proof of saved expenses and full accounting disclosure; tender cost estimates do not substitute for proof; Procedural – condonation of late filings in interests of justice.
|
15 December 2025 |
|
Business rescue cannot suspend obligations imposed by subordinate legislation; the SI Agreement and SASA’s statutory enforcement remain enforceable.
Companies Act – business rescue – s 136(2)(a) – meaning of 'agreement' – requires mutual assent; statutory instruments excluded. Administrative law – subordinate legislation – SI Agreement held to be subordinate legislation promulgated under Sugar Act. Regulatory law – statutory regulatory authority – SASA empowered to enforce regulatory obligations during business rescue (s 133(1)(f)). Constitutional law – equality (s 9) – exclusion of statutory obligations from s 136(2)(a) rational and constitutional.
|
15 December 2025 |
|
Permanent stay requires trial‑related prejudice or extraordinary circumstances; social and financial stigma alone insufficient.
Criminal procedure – permanent stay of prosecution – remedy reserved for trial‑related prejudice or extraordinary circumstances – frontal challenges and novel grounds on appeal must be foreshadowed in pleadings – social and financial stigma not trial‑related prejudice – adverse costs where application is frivolous or delays prosecution.
|
12 December 2025 |
|
Failure to prove and pronounce common purpose vitiated mandatory life sentence under s 51(1); appellate court imposed 25 years.
Sentence — minimum sentences — Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 ss 51(1) and 51(2) — scheduled feature (common purpose) must be pleaded, proven and pronounced before s 51(1) sentence may be imposed — s 51(2) not a fallback for s 51(1) — misdirection vitiating sentence — appellate court entitled to impose sentence afresh under common law.
|
11 December 2025 |
|
The appellant could rescind a credit-sale for latent defects; the bank was a supplier and CPA protections for the goods applied.
Law of contract — actio redhibitoria for latent defects — buyer’s right to rescind a sale; Interpretation of credit agreements — supplier versus credit provider; Consumer Protection Act applicability to goods financed under the National Credit Act; Waiver — conduct and objective intention; Section 69 CPA — exhaustion of remedies and counterclaims in court chosen by claimant.
|
10 December 2025 |
|
|
8 December 2025 |
|
An arbitrator may not declare a municipal procurement contract constitutionally invalid; only a court may do so under section 172.
Arbitration – limits of arbitrator’s powers – Arbitration Act s 33(1)(b) and s 20 – Constitutional law – s 172 remedial power reserved for courts – Public procurement – s 217 of the Constitution and MFMA – arbitrator exceeded powers by declaring municipal contract invalid – award reviewable and set aside.
|
4 December 2025 |
|
Magistrate’s unexplained decision to dispense with a public viva voce inquest vitiated the proceedings; review grounded in principle of legality.
Inquests Act – s 8(1), s 10 and s 13(1) – default requirement of a public inquest with viva voce evidence; dispensing with oral evidence only in exceptional, non‑disputed cases; inquest findings are exercise of public power; high court review founded in principle of legality; material irregularity where magistrate arbitrarily dispenses with oral evidence; remittal for fresh public inquest.
|
4 December 2025 |
|
No exceptional circumstances found to warrant reconsideration of refusal of special leave to appeal.
Criminal law — reconsideration under s 17(2)(f) Superior Courts Act — exceptional circumstances required (probability of grave injustice or risk to administration of justice); application to re-open previously decided appeal grounds; adequacy of trial record and missing transcript not shown to frustrate appeal.
|
1 December 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to show interest for declaratory relief; electronic commissioning and regulatory change are matters for the Minister.
Civil procedure – Declaratory relief – s 21(1)(c) Superior Courts Act – interest in existing/future/contingent right; Interpretation of regulation 3 (Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act) – meaning of "in the presence of"; Electronic commissioning of affidavits – audio‑visual platforms and safeguards; Separation of powers – regulatory change for electronic oaths lies with Minister; Advanced electronic signature (ECTA s13).
|
1 December 2025 |
|
Nil returns supported a 150% understatement penalty; new evidence and appeal dismissed, attachment and estimates upheld.
Tax law – understatement penalties (ss 221–223 TAA) – 150% penalty for intentional tax evasion – bona fide inadvertent error exception; Estimation powers (s 95 TAA) and use of Seventh Schedule (ITA) for private motor vehicle use; attachment of third‑party corporate funds and standing; admissibility of further evidence on appeal (s 19(b) Superior Courts Act).
|
1 December 2025 |
| November 2025 |
|
|
Informal acceptance and adopted minutes do not satisfy statutory approval requirements for sectional extensions.
Sectional Titles Act s 24 – Extension of sections; STSMA s 5(1)(h) – approval by special resolution; Informal meeting acceptance and adoption of minutes do not constitute statutory approval or ratification; Requirements for declaratory relief and final interdict in sectional title disputes; Rule 7 challenge to trustees’ authority and special levy – trustees’ appointment of attorneys valid; Body corporate locus standi.
|
28 November 2025 |
|
Whether an innocent tenderer must disgorge profits from an unlawful award or may retain a reasonable return under s172 discretion.
Administrative law – public procurement – remedy for unlawful tender awards – scope of s 172(1)(a) and (b) discretion; Allpay II considered; ‘no loss, but no gain’ principle not automatic; disgorgement requires inquiry into culpability, incumbency, duties to continue services, and reasonableness of profit.
|
28 November 2025 |
|
Whether a founder’s testamentary reservation validly designates capital beneficiaries, including indeterminate classes, binding the trustees.
Trusts – discretionary trust – testamentary reservation (clause 27) – founder’s prescription rights include identification and distribution – validity of designation of indeterminate classes (future descendants, trusts, companies) – interpretation of trust deed and will – allocative inequality permissible.
|
28 November 2025 |
|
A court may decide a moot tender dispute where ambiguous turnkey/CIDB requirements raise a discrete public‑importance legal issue.
Municipal procurement – tender vagueness – turnkey contracts – CIDB registration requirement – standing to review – PAJA timeliness – mootness and discretion under Superior Courts Act s 16(2)(a).
|
28 November 2025 |
|
Appeal lapsed because heads of argument were lodged late without condonation; reinstatement application struck off the roll.
Civil procedure – appeal procedure – late lodgment of notice of appeal, record and heads of argument – rule 10(2A)(a) lapse of appeal for late heads – duty on appellant and attorneys to lodge complete record – reinstatement application required to revive lapsed appeal.
|
28 November 2025 |
|
Reconsideration granted but leave to appeal dismissed; stay and upliftment refusals upheld for lack of bona fide defence.
Civil procedure — reconsideration of refusal of leave to appeal under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act; stay of proceedings for unpaid previous costs — requirements include taxed and demanded costs, substantially similar proceedings, and willful non-payment; costs orders rest within judicial discretion; rule 27 upliftment of bar — requires explanation for default and a bona fide defence with prospects of success.
|
21 November 2025 |
|
Whether ITAC’s sunset-review initiation and ministers’ decisions to maintain anti-dumping duties were lawful.
Customs/Anti-dumping — Sunset review initiation — Verification not required pre-initiation; initiation requires prima facie case only. PAJA — 180-day rule — delay and condonation. Administrative law — Procedural fairness vs executive/policy decisions — ministerial acceptance of ITAC recommendations is executive and subject to legality, not full rehearing. Delegation — s118 delegation to Deputy Minister of Finance validly empowers amendment of Schedule 2. WTO/Anti-Dumping Agreement — distinction between original investigations and sunset reviews reflected in regulations.
|
18 November 2025 |
|
The applicant’s late attempt to withdraw admissions and reinstate an appeal was refused for lack of bona fides and exceptional circumstances.
Civil procedure – amendment of pleadings – withdrawal of admission – requires bona fides and absence of prejudice not remediable by costs or postponement. Contract/settlement law – compromise – common mistake of existing or past fact – mutuality and materiality required to void agreement. Procedural law – reinstatement/condonation of lapsed appeal – full, detailed, and satisfactory explanation for delay required; prospects relevant but not decisive. Superior Courts Act s 17(2)(f) – referral for reconsideration – exceptional circumstances/grave failure of justice threshold applies. Evidence – late divergent expert opinion does not retrospectively establish a mutual mistake or justify late change of litigation strategy.
|
18 November 2025 |
|
Appellant failed to prove common mistake; Placing Slip and final policy include ICD cover, so rectification refused.
Insurance law – antecedent quoting slips and placing slip under POLDRA – rectification – onus to prove common continuing intention and common mistake (Propfokus factors) – parol evidence rule – Placing Slip and signed policy as operative contract.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
Appointment of municipal manager set aside for regulatory breaches and perceived conflict of interest; councillors had standing to seek review.
Local government – Municipal Systems Act s54A(7)–(10) – standing to review municipal manager appointments – principle of legality – MEC role versus access to court; Administrative law – Regulations on appointment – Regulation 12(5)–(6) – disclosure and recusal for conflicts of interest; Nepotism and perceived indebtedness vitiating recruitment process; Costs – personal costs order against public office-holders.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
Application for reconsideration under s17(2)(f) dismissed; agent’s undisclosed interest rendered sale and builder’s lien void.
Superior Courts Act s 17(2)(f) – scope and threshold for presidential referral; estate agency – fidelity fund certificate and invalid mandate; conflict of interest – agent as undisclosed purchaser; Companies Act s 20(9) – abuse of juristic personality/alter ego; validity of renovation agreements and builder’s lien; validity of cession under sale agreement; representation of juristic persons by lay persons in superior courts.
|
12 November 2025 |
|
The appellant’s personal mitigation did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances to avoid prescribed minimum sentences.
Criminal law – sentence – prescribed minimum sentences – substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate; Sentencing – brutality of offence outweighing personal mitigation; Constitutional law – equality challenge to divergent appellate sentencing outcomes; Procedural – desirability that related appeals of co‑accused be heard by same court to avoid inconsistent outcomes.
|
12 November 2025 |
|
LPC may seek court orders differing from a DC’s sanction; dishonest attorney struck from the roll.
Legal Practice – Disciplinary procedure – effect of s 40(8) LPA – DC’s ruling and recommended sanction not final or binding on the Legal Practice Council; Council may seek differing court relief. Professional misconduct – misappropriation of trust funds – fit and proper enquiry – dishonest practitioner generally to be struck from roll absent exceptional circumstances. Disciplinary proceedings – sui generis; court remains final arbiter whether to suspend or strike off.
|
7 November 2025 |
