|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2024 |
|
|
An application to rescind a valid s20(9) piercing order is not available to the applicant where judgment was properly obtained.
Companies Act s20(9) – piercing corporate veil – use of company as device/facade to perpetrate fraud; rescission – Uniform Rule 42(1)(a) – ‘erroneously granted’ judgments; Lodhi principle – procedural entitlement vs subsequent merits-defence; section 354 (1973 Act) and common-law rescission – no case made out; discretion – advanced stage of winding-up and finality.
|
28 March 2024 |
|
An order permitting the respondent to intervene in a review of an admissibility ruling is interlocutory and not appealable.
Appealability — interlocutory orders — Zweni criteria and ‘interests of justice’ approach; intervention in review of admissibility ruling; standing of statutory complainant to intervene; avoidance of piecemeal litigation; fair-trial implications.
|
28 March 2024 |
|
The respondents validly terminated the commercial lease on notice; repudiation and good‑faith negotiation claims failed.
Contract law – commercial lease – lessor’s contractual right to cancel on one month’s notice – validity of termination notice; Repudiation – objective test – prior denial of lease did not amount to repudiation once court treated lease as extant; Public policy – pacta sunt servanda, limits on courts refusing enforcement of freely negotiated commercial terms; Development of common law – no general duty to negotiate in good faith in pure commercial lease disputes; Eviction – appellate discretion to vary eviction date.
|
28 March 2024 |
|
Whether a further interdict against alleged fuel retailing was necessary given an existing interdict and unresolved statutory interpretation.
Interdictory relief; mootness of additional interdict where an effective overarching interdict exists; statutory interpretation of 'per transaction' in wholesale fuel regulation (1500 litres); appropriateness of appellate court deciding novel issues when judgment below unclear and other interested parties absent.
|
28 March 2024 |
|
Applicant’s claim for electricity costs failed—no contractual right was transferred and unjustified enrichment was not established.
Contract — sale of business and cession — express cession requirements in sale agreement preclude reliance upon clause of prior agreement absent formal cession or tripartite deed.* Contract — non-variation clause and requirement of formal documentation negate tacit/oral cession of rights.* Enrichment — claimant must plead and prove enrichment, impoverishment, enrichment at claimant’s expense and lack of causa; failure to plead facts and existence of indemnity defeats claim.* Prescription issue resolved in favour of claimant but did not save deficient substantive claims.
|
28 March 2024 |
|
Reported
Whether police lawfully arrested and detained a driver; detention found unlawful where police failed to inform or consider bail.
Criminal procedure – warrantless arrest under s 40(1) CPA – discretion whether to arrest and its scope; Criminal procedure – detainee’s right to be informed of and to apply for police bail (ss 50, 59 CPA) – failure to inform/consider bail can render continued detention unlawful; Civil damages – unlawful detention – appropriate solatium for deprivation of liberty; Magistrates’ Court Act s 86 and rule 51(11)(a) – abandonment of part of judgment during appeal and costs consequences.
|
27 March 2024 |
|
Minority shareholders failed to prove unfair prejudice; shareholders’ agreement and a final CCMA award were decisive.
Companies law – s 252 (old Act) – unfairly prejudicial conduct – exclusion claims and legitimate expectations – effect of a negotiated shareholders’ agreement; employee-shareholder dismissal – relevance of final CCMA arbitration award; ‘locked-in’ minority – inability to exit not automatically unfair; offers to buy relevant but absence not determinative; improper use of company funds to defend shareholder disputes – interdict and reimbursement remedies; trial management – judicial interventions and curtailment of cross-examination caution.
|
26 March 2024 |
|
Court remitted matter because High Court issued an unclear structural interdict against one municipality without resolving other State entities' liability.
Structural interdicts — court must resolve lis between multiple State entities; orders must be clear, practical and enforceable (Eke v Parsons) — Water Act implications for altering watercourses and stream‑flow reduction activities — remit where trial court’s order is inchoate or improperly framed.
|
22 March 2024 |
|
A court must enforce a consent settlement order; it lacks jurisdiction to reopen disputes already compromised and ordered.
Practice and procedure — business rescue — no valid application where leave to intervene not granted; settlement agreement (transactio) made an order of court — res judicata; court must enforce consent orders; limited grounds for rescission.
|
22 March 2024 |
|
Appellants failed to show realistic prospects of success; refusal of petition to appeal conviction was properly upheld.
Criminal procedure — s 309C petitions — scope of appeal where high court refused leave: appellate role limited to whether there are reasonable prospects of success; leave requires realistic prospects; identification evidence and corroboration — single-witness cautionary approach, evaluation of proximity, corroboration and inconsistencies.
|
20 March 2024 |
|
Reported
A judge’s abrupt departure and curtailment of cross-examination created a reasonable apprehension of bias, requiring recusal.
Judicial conduct – Recusal – reasonable apprehension of bias; Virtual hearings – leaving platform without adjourning; Curtailment of cross-examination – effect on credibility assessment; SARFU test – objective informed observer; Nullity of proceedings where recusal required; Costs – including costs of two counsel and certain expert costs.
|
20 March 2024 |
|
s51(1) mandatory life applies where evidence proves gang rape, even if co-perpetrators remain unconvicted.
Criminal law — Mandatory minimum sentencing — s 51(1) Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 — scope of Part I of Schedule 2 (rape committed more than once or by more than one person) — whether co-perpetrators must be convicted before minimum applies — statutory interpretation and stare decisis; Appeal by State under s 311 Criminal Procedure Act — question of law; reinstatement and backdating of life sentence.
|
14 March 2024 |
|
Reported
Where jurisdiction is undisputed, a rule 53 record must ordinarily be produced before substantive review defences are decided.
Rule 53 — Production of record in review proceedings — obligation to produce record arises automatically on launch where court jurisdiction undisputed; exception where jurisdiction contested. Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) — point in limine — may raise pure legal questions, but cannot, where jurisdiction is unquestioned, be used to deprive applicant of rule 53 record. Liquidators — election to resile from executory contracts — timing of judicial review and remedy for purchasers; limits to ordering specific performance against liquidators.
|
14 March 2024 |
|
Whether the applicant’s civil marriage barred the respondent from customary marriages and whether declaratory relief was appropriate.
Family law – Deceased estate administration; Marriage Act (civil marriage in community of property) v customary marriages; Recognition of Customary Marriages Act s 2; Declaratory relief – discretionary remedy, ripeness and mootness; Court of appeal’s review of discretionary refusal of declaratory orders.
|
8 March 2024 |
|
Reported
A TAA warrant targeting premises may be executed against third parties and their vehicles on reasonable suspicion.
Search and seizure — Tax Administration Act ss 59–61 — Interpretation: provisions are location‑specific not taxpayer‑specific — warrant may be executed against persons present on premises — s 61(3)(a) permits opening/removing 'anything' including vehicles suspected to contain relevant material — suspicion/probable cause suffices — spoliation remedy unavailable where search lawful under TAA.
|
5 March 2024 |
|
Claim for birth-related brain injury dismissed: acute profound HII unforeseeable; CTG monitoring would not necessarily have prevented injury.
Delict — medical negligence — intrapartum hypoxic-ischaemic injury — distinction between acute profound and prolonged partial HII — foreseeability and causation; evidentiary value and limits of CTG monitoring; admission of late expert evidence.
|
5 March 2024 |
