|
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 |
| February 2024 |
|
|
Shareholder/director may invoke s 163, but on these facts no oppressive conduct was established and special leave is refused.
Company law – oppression remedy (s 163) – scope and locus standi of shareholder/director to seek relief; Copyright – assignment and effect of adaptations – s 22(3) of Copyright Act; Foss v Harbottle / reflective loss – not an absolute bar to s 163 claims; Variation of contracts by court under oppression remedy – caution where material disputes of fact and applicant’s acquiescence; Special leave to appeal – requirement of special circumstances in addition to prospects of success.
|
28 February 2024 |
|
The appellant’s rape convictions set aside where complainant's single-witness evidence was inconsistent and accused's version reasonably possible.
Criminal law — rape — evaluation of single-witness complainant evidence — duty to treat single-witness evidence with caution; accused’s version must only be rejected if shown false beyond reasonable doubt; medical (J88) report is neutral absent expert evidence to explain findings; conviction unsustainable where inconsistencies and reasonable possibility of accused’s version exist.
|
21 February 2024 |
|
Reasonable and probable cause must be assessed at the time of the prosecution decision and precedes any inquiry into malice; appeal dismissed.
Malicious prosecution — sequence of enquiry: reasonable and probable cause antecedent to malice (animus injuriandi); assessment of reasonable and probable cause by reference to materials available to prosecutor at time of decision to prosecute; count‑by‑count evaluation; withdrawal of charges or s 174 discharges do not necessarily negate original reasonable cause.
|
16 February 2024 |
|
A surety lacks locus standi to invoke s 31(2) of the Insolvency Act to avoid liability after a debtor's liquidation.
Insolvency law – interpretation of s31(2) read with s32 – remedies to set aside collusive dispositions vested in liquidator/trustee (or creditor in liquidator’s name) – s31(2) remedies follow only upon setting aside and benefit the estate – surety lacks locus standi to invoke s31(2) as a defence.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
Reported
Court upholds life sentence for rape involving grievous bodily harm, substitutes 15 years where statutory requirements for life were unmet.
Criminal law – sentencing – s 316B appeal – duplication of convictions and punishment – common-sense test to avoid splitting one substantive offence. Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 – s 51(1) and Schedule 2 – definition/application of 'grievous bodily harm' in rape cases – life sentence where rape involves grievous bodily harm. Schedule 2 Part I(a)(iii) – prescribed life sentence for an offender convicted of two or more rapes but not yet sentenced – inapplicable where convictions had not yet occurred at time of subsequent offence. Substantial and compelling circumstances – assessment: aggravating conduct may outweigh personal mitigation, precluding deviation from statutory minima.
|
8 February 2024 |
|
Reported
A foreign possession order convertible under foreign procedure is not a liquid money judgment for provisional sentence.
Private international law; enforceability of foreign judgments; provisional sentence; liquidity requirement — foreign possession order enforceable under foreign procedure as money does not become a liquid money judgment for South African provisional-sentence enforcement.
|
6 February 2024 |
|
Reported
Bekker test (with Dublin/Prince caveat) applies to CEO deadlock determinations; five‑year cap was unreasonable, substituted with 5%–7.5% revenue share.
Constitutional‑order interpretation; third‑party deadlock‑breaker determinations — Bekker equitable‑rectification test (distinct from PAJA) with Dean v Prince/Dublin caveat; review where decision is unreasonable, irregular or produces a patently inequitable result; proper remedies — substitution v remittal; revenue‑share quantification (duration, incremental revenue, effective rate, disclosure).
|
6 February 2024 |
| January 2024 |
|
|
Organ of state’s unexplained delay in self-review refused; procurement deviations held immaterial and review denied.
Administrative law – self-review by organ of state – two-stage delay enquiry (awareness/unreasonable delay and whether to overlook) – procurement law – materiality of tender deviations – de minimis principle – prejudice and public interest – conduct of state organ and opportunistic self-review.
|
31 January 2024 |
|
Reported
Appellate courts may not resolve credibility-based factual disputes where the trial record is lost and unreconstructed; matter remitted.
Civil procedure – lost trial record – duty of parties and court to reconstruct record (Schoombee) – appellate review of credibility and factual findings – improper hearing of appeal without record – remittal for de novo trial – fair trial (s 34).
|
30 January 2024 |
|
A s 133 moratorium prevents a landlord perfecting an unperfected tacit hypothec during business rescue without consent or court leave.
Companies Act — Business rescue: s 133 moratorium on legal proceedings (includes perfection of security); s 150(5) publication period — extensions by practitioners via notice and implied consent; s 151 notice to affected persons; s 144 employee representation — unions and proxy where union absent; s 145(6) five‑day limit for review of BRP’s determination — condonation not granted; landlord’s tacit hypothec — unperfected hypothec remains concurrent claim, cannot be perfected during business rescue without consent or court leave.
|
29 January 2024 |
|
Whether failing to hold a further hearing per counsel’s email constituted a reviewable gross irregularity under s 33(1)(b).
Arbitration — review under s 33(1)(b) — gross irregularity must relate to conduct of proceedings not merits; procedural email between counsel cannot amend arbitrator’s mandate unless formal amendment requirements met; arbitrator’s procedural discretion and interpretation of procedural agreements final unless fatally unreasonable; decision on quantum based on clear evidence not reviewable; decision on unproved missing-assets claim is a merits finding not susceptible to review.
|
26 January 2024 |
|
An arbitration agreement predicated on a sale agreement that lapsed for non‑fulfilment of a suspensive condition is a nullity.
Arbitration — effect of suspensive condition — non‑fulfilment renders principal contract void ab initio — arbitration clause embedded in or predicated on void contract falls with it — arbitration agreement cannot be treated as self‑standing where parties intended a single inseparable transaction — arbitrator exceeding mandate — award nullity.
|
26 January 2024 |
|
Whether alleged nondisclosure and forensic irregularities infringed the appellant's fair‑trial rights — appeal dismissed.
Criminal procedure — Fair trial rights (s 35(3) Constitution) — Disclosure of forensic working papers and s 212 statements — Right to adduce and challenge evidence — Duty to seek discovery (s 87(1) CPA) and to cross‑examine — Forensic evidence (GC‑MS, FT‑IR) — Machine calibration — Effect of prosecutorial conduct on trial fairness.
|
19 January 2024 |
|
The applicant’s bare denial failed against credible complainant testimony, medical evidence and corroboration; conviction upheld.
Criminal law – Rape – assessment of single witness – corroboration by medical evidence and contemporaneous communications – bare denial and silence insufficient to raise reasonable doubt.
|
19 January 2024 |
|
Reported
Whether civil courts may hear salary-deduction disputes under s77(3) and if an erroneously paid notch increment created contractual entitlement.
Jurisdiction of civil courts vs Labour Court under s 77(3) BCEA; unlawful deductions (s 34) and contractual entitlement to salary increments; effect of erroneous payments on contractual rights; peremption and mootness of appeals; appropriate costs orders.
|
17 January 2024 |
|
Court upheld single-witness and photo-identification, rejected alibi and unreliable hearsay; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – single-witness identification – cautionary rule and reliability; photo-identification versus formal identification parade; s37(6)(a)(iii) CPA – privacy and evidence; s115 CPA – alibi and evidential value; Hearsay Evidence Act s3(1)(c) – admissibility and probative value; exclusion of bail-record and impact on fairness.
|
16 January 2024 |
|
Convictions set aside where State failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt given uncorroborated single-witness evidence and investigative gaps.
Criminal law – conviction on single witness evidence – court must evaluate evidence in totality and apply caution; State’s duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to call material witnesses and to produce available corroborative evidence can render a prosecution unsustainable; where accused’s version is reasonably possibly true, he must be acquitted.
|
15 January 2024 |
|
Reported
A request for reasons or appeal does not suspend tax demands; refusal to admit a supplementary affidavit is non‑appealable.
Tax law – Customs and Excise – certified statements (s114) – demand payments not suspended by request for reasons or internal appeal (s77G) – interim interdicts against fiscal recovery are exceptional – rule 53 proceedings – supplementary founding affidavit and interlocutory rulings not ordinarily appealable – admission of new evidence on appeal exceptional.
|
12 January 2024 |
|
Reported
A secured creditor may not set off post‑liquidation rent against net proceeds payable under s83(10) of the Insolvency Act.
Company/insolvency — s83(10) Insolvency Act — realisation of security by creditor — obligation to pay net proceeds to trustee/liquidator — post‑liquidation rental not deductible as cost of realisation — common‑law set‑off incompatible with statutory concursus and distribution scheme.
|
9 January 2024 |
