Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa - 1966

Sort by:

5 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
September 1966
Du Toit v S (38/66) [1966] ZASCA 5 (27 September 1966) Whether 'reasonable suspicion' in s.28(1)(b) is a finder’s state of mind at the time of discovery and appellate substitution of conviction. Criminal law — Animal Diseases Act — meaning of 'reasonable suspicion' in s.28(1)(b) — state of mind of finder at time of discovery — judicial notice that Cetacea/Sirenia are marine mammals — appellate power to quash and substitute conviction.	27 September 1966
Minister of Water Affairs v Mostert and Others (161/65) [1966] ZASCA 1 (1 September 1966)	1 September 1966
May 1966
Nortje and Another v Pool (182/65) [1966] ZASCA 4 (6 May 1966) Expenditure that uncovers exploitable minerals can create unjustified enrichment in the landowner absent a valid contract. * Unjustified enrichment — equitable doctrine underlying compensation for improvements to land can extend beyond tangible annexations to value increases caused by discovery/expenditure. * Market‑value increase from discovery of minerals constitutes enrichment even absent sale. * Pleading requirements — impoverishment of claimant and enrichment of defendant sufficiently pleaded where prospecting expenditure revealed commercially exploitable deposit. * Exception — refusal to attest a void contract and to pay expenses may render estate prima facie liable.	6 May 1966
March 1966
Registrar Trade Marks v American Cigarette Company (Overseas) Limited (181/65) [1966] ZASCA 3 (31 March 1966) A disclaimer in a registered trade mark does not bar the registrar from considering the disclaimed matter when assessing deceptive similarity. Trade marks — Section 17(1) — likelihood of deception or confusion — Registrar's duty to protect public interest and purity of register at initial stage — disclaimer does not necessarily exclude disclaimed matter from comparison — disclaimed words may still cause confusion if prominent or unusual.	31 March 1966
Dorfman v Afrikaanse Pers Publikasies (Eiendoms) Beperk and Others (160/65) [1966] ZASCA 2 (24 Maart 1966) Whether an ordinary reader would view the article as imputing improper management and vindictive conduct by the appellant. Defamation — newspaper reports — ordinary reasonable reader test — article to be read as a whole; headlines not to be isolated — imputations of improper administration of trust funds and vindictive treatment of subordinate — actionable if ordinary reader would so understand.	24 March 1966