background image

Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa

The Supreme Court of Appeal is, except in respect of certain labour and competition matters, the second highest court in South Africa. In terms of the Constitution, it is purely an appeal court and may decide only appeals and issues connected with appeals. (Banner image by Ben Bezuidenhout).
Physical address
Cnr Mirriam Makeba & President Brand Streets, Bloemfontein, Free State, 9301
8 judgments
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
8 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
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