|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2026 |
|
|
Applicants failed to show trust provisions produced unforeseen consequences or prejudiced beneficiaries; termination was unwarranted.
Trusts — s 13 TPCA — variation or termination — anchor jurisdictional factor: unforeseen consequences must be those not contemplated by founder as evidenced in trust deed — founder’s intention derived from deed, not later verbal statements — wide trustee discretion and illiquid assets may justify postponing vesting — termination an extraordinary remedy.
|
6 March 2026 |
|
The applicant may not modify GAAR grounds post-assessment in a rule 31 statement without issuing a revised assessment.
Tax law – General anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) – s 80J(4) – temporal limitation to pre-assessment/audit phase – cannot be relied on after s 80B assessment issued; Tax procedure – Rule 31(3) TAA rules – does not independently permit substantive post-assessment changes that require a revised GAAR assessment; Administrative irregular step – inclusion of new GAAR basis in rule 31 statement can be set aside under uniform rule 30.
|
5 March 2026 |
| February 2026 |
|
|
Whether API 5L X42 seamless pipes qualify as 'line pipe' for oil/gas pipelines or as 'other' seamless steel pipes.
Customs and Excise – tariff classification – TH 7304.19.90 v TH 7304.39.35 – meaning of 'of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines' – application of GRI and Explanatory Notes – objective characteristics and API 5L specification – in dubio contra fiscum as last resort.
|
27 February 2026 |
|
A practitioner is not personally liable where a creditor shared belief in rescue and approved/continued funding despite known risks.
Company law — Business rescue practitioner liability — s 424(1) old Act and s 140(3)(c)(ii) new Act — recklessness vs gross negligence — creditor knowledge, participation and subsequent drawdowns bearing on liability.
|
24 February 2026 |
|
Rule 32(3) disallows new appeal grounds that in substance raise a new objection to a different part or amount of the assessment.
Tax law — Tax Court Rules — Rule 32(3) — New grounds of appeal — Objection under rule 7 — Prohibition against raising new objections to a different part or amount of assessment — Prevention of ambush and promotion of finality in tax proceedings.
|
24 February 2026 |
|
Refusal of special leave to appeal: regulation for public open space did not apply to a consolidated erf; special circumstances not established.
Administrative law – appeal on special leave – requirements for special leave where the underlying zoning scheme repealed; Interpretation of zoning scheme provisions – meaning of "created by subdivision or rezoning" and of "open space" – distinction between public and private open space; Land use planning – effect of consolidation versus cadastral subdivision; Repeal of old scheme and application of new Integrated Scheme to pending SDPs.
|
20 February 2026 |
|
A valid mining right grants limited access to land; cession requires Ministerial consent, not the landowner’s approval.
Mineral rights – MPRDA s5(3) access rights; cession of mining rights – s11 (Ministerial consent); lease cession and delectus personae; s54 (compensation/consultation) not triggered; Municipal Asset Transfer Regulations reg34 (public participation) – applicability.
|
13 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 |
