|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2024 |
|
|
An occupier’s refusal to provide housing information and waiver of municipal assistance can justify eviction under PIE.
PIE – eviction – s 4(7) and 4(8) – court’s duty to inquire into occupiers’ circumstances and to consider City report when occupier faces homelessness. Occupier conduct – refusal to complete municipal housing questionnaire or to accept municipal assistance may justify proceeding without fuller City report. Civil procedure – refusal of further postponement for legal representation not necessarily a miscarriage of justice where occupier’s conduct causes delay.
|
29 November 2024 |
|
A restraint of trade barring ex-employees from working was largely rejected; only solicitation of former clients was interdicted.
Labour law – Restraint of trade – Protectable interest – Reasonableness – Employee solicitation of clients – Hairdressing industry – Evidence of confidential information or solicitation required.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
Reported
Rescission for alleged fraud refused for inordinate delay and failure to prove fraud; provisional sequestration granted.
Rescission — common law rescission for alleged fraud — high threshold to prove fraud in motion proceedings — inordinate delay/timeousness — exercise of discretion to refuse rescission — res judicata/abuse of process — provisional sequestration after nulla bona returns.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
Master’s refusal to grant a special liquidator’s fee was rational; review dismissed and costs awarded to the Master.
Companies law – Liquidators’ remuneration – section 384(1)-(3) Companies Act – Master’s discretion under s384(2) to increase or decrease remuneration – review under s151 Insolvency Act (statutory review/de novo powers) – PAJA and principle of legality – locus standi of liquidators to sue in representative capacity – relevance of time sheets, joint duty of liquidators, creditor protection and prevention of abuse.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
Master’s refusal to increase liquidators’ special fee at first account upheld; review dismissed and costs awarded.
Companies Act s384(1)-(2) – liquidators’ remuneration – scope for departure from tariff; Insolvency Act s151 statutory review powers; locus standi of liquidators to challenge remuneration; Master’s supervisory duty to protect creditors; rationality and relevance of considerations in fee assessments.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
Plaintiff awarded R1 million general damages (defendant liable for R800,000) for serious permanent leg injuries; Scale C costs.
Road Accident Fund – assessment of general damages for serious orthopaedic injuries under s17(1)/(1A). Quantum – evaluation of pain, suffering, disfigurement, permanent disability and loss of amenities; use of comparable awards as guideline. Liability conceded in part (80%) – effect on payable sum. Costs – party-and-party costs including expert fees; Rule 67A(3) discretion applied to award counsel’s fees on Scale C for work after 12 April 2024. Interest – calculated from 14 days after judgment to date of final payment.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
The execution creditor failed to prove a partnership; second claimant succeeds to most attached goods; third claimant’s car deferred.
Interpleader (Uniform Rule 58) – onus depends on possession at time of seizure; admissibility—s 65 record inadmissible without s 3(1)(c) application; proof required to establish partnership/universal partnership to defeat claimant’s title; capacity—appointment of curator ad litem required before adjudicating assets of an incapable third party; costs—successful claimant not necessarily entitled to costs where credibility concerns exist.
|
28 November 2024 |
|
Former spouse entitled to terminate co-ownership via actio communi dividundo and obtain equal net proceeds on sale.
Property law – actio communi dividundo – availability where extrinsic relationship has ceased – free v bound co-ownership. Civil procedure – motion proceedings – Plascon-Evans rule and bona fide disputes of fact requiring action. Family/property – treatment of non-financial and indirect contributions when dividing marital property acquired during marriage. Remedies – sale by private treaty and equal division of net proceeds; receiver not appointed when unnecessary and expensive. Costs – successful applicant awarded costs, including counsel.
|
27 November 2024 |
|
Applicants perempted challenge and orders holding settlement terms as judgment on breach were valid and enforceable.
Civil procedure – settlement agreements made orders of court – effect and enforceability – clause making settlement order operate as judgment on breach. Peremption – acquiescence in settlement orders precluding rescission. Settlement content – inclusion of related debts (ISA, additional funding, fees) permissible where connected to lis. Interpretation – orders to be read to give practical effect; not rendered ambiguous by preservation of original causes of action. Variation/rescission – inherent power and Rule 42(1)(b) inapplicable where provisions are substantive and res judicata.
|
26 November 2024 |
|
Executor removed where beneficiary-executor refused to account, conflicted over estate business proceeds, and delayed administration.
Wills – interpretation of testamentary provisions concerning an on-going business; doctrine of election; Plascon-Evans approach to disputed factual allegations; fiduciary duties of executors; removal of executor for conflict of interest, delay and failure to account; duties to lodge liquidation and distribution account and to hand over estate records.
|
26 November 2024 |
|
A restraint of trade preventing a former hairstylist from working locally was unreasonable absent a protectable interest or client solicitation.
Labour law – Restraint of trade – Reasonableness and enforceability – Requirement of a protectable proprietary interest – Skills and customer relationships in hairdressing industry – Absence of confidential information and client solicitation – Public policy considerations.
|
26 November 2024 |
|
The plaintiff's particulars sufficiently disclosed causes of action; the defendants' exceptions were dismissed with costs.
• Civil procedure – exception for failure to disclose cause of action – excipient must show that on every construction no cause of action is disclosed; pleaded facts accepted as true. • Contract/delict – consequential damages (lost rental) – foreseeability and causation may be sufficiently pleaded by alleging the parties contemplated loss from delay; exact quantum need not be foreseen at contracting. • Joinder and attribution – pleading that a contracting party acted as authorised representative may suffice to implicate associated corporate entities. • Remedy – defective particulars ordinarily addressed by amendment; exceptions should not be used to improperly dismiss a cause of action.
|
25 November 2024 |
|
Applicants failed to show prospects for an urgent anti-dissipation interdict; leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – urgent interim interdict and anti-dissipatory relief – requirements for prima facie right, absence of alternative remedy, imminent irreparable harm and balance of convenience; representation of corporate party by non-lawyer – challenge not raised in founding papers; obligation to request reasons under rule 49(1)(c) – absence of written reasons not fatal where reasons not formally sought; late-filed answering affidavit and election to proceed – applicant cannot thereafter complain.
|
25 November 2024 |
|
Respondent held in contempt for bringing proceedings after being declared a vexatious litigant; suspended committal and costs ordered.
Vexatious litigant — instituting proceedings without leave contrary to s 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act; contempt of court — civil and criminal aspects; limits on access to court; role of informer in contempt proceedings; competency to impose suspended committal or fine where punitive relief not specifically prayed for.
|
22 November 2024 |
|
A vexatious-litigant order barring instituting proceedings without leave justified striking a business rescue application and awarding punitive costs.
Business rescue – Companies Act s131; vexatious litigant order – prohibition on instituting proceedings without leave; separate legal personality cannot be used to circumvent a personal prohibition; irregular step – striking application from the roll; costs awarded on attorney-and-client scale.
|
21 November 2024 |
|
Further‑and‑better discovery application dismissed as overbroad and speculative; plaintiff’s discovery affidavit upheld.
Civil procedure – Rule 35(3)/(7) – further and better discovery – requirements of specificity, identification and relevance; discovery affidavit ordinarily conclusive absent reasonable grounds or mala fides; overbroad and vague discovery requests as fishing expedition and abuse of process; privacy limits to discovery; NCA/PSIRA factual relevance considered.
|
21 November 2024 |
|
Court interdicted use of AFRULA for marula liqueur, finding statutory infringement and dilution of well‑known AMARULA trade marks.
Trade marks – statutory infringement – s34(1)(a): likelihood of deception or confusion between AFRULA and well‑known AMARULA; Trade marks – s34(1)(c): protection of well‑known marks against taking unfair advantage/dilution; Passing‑off – requires market presence and actual or probable damage; Constitutional freedom of expression limited where commercial trade‑mark rights are infringed; Interim and final interdictory relief and costs awarded.
|
21 November 2024 |
|
Reported
A usufructuary’s express right to dispose of estate assets and reinvest proceeds is enforceable; executor approval may not be unreasonably withheld.
• Succession and wills – interpretation: give full effect to dominant clause but honour express special bequest limiting ownership until usufructuary’s death; • Usufruct – scope: "full usufruct" permitting disposal of assets and reinvestment of proceeds; • Executors’ approval: approval of reinvestment must not be unreasonably withheld and must aim to preserve capital while prioritising usufructuary's comfort; • Enforcement: court may compel heirs to sign transfer documents and authorise Sheriff to sign.
|
20 November 2024 |
|
Reported
Payments made by a company after the commencement of winding‑up are void dispositions and must be repaid; Savers Lane was the company in liquidation.
Companies Act s 341(2) – dispositions after commencement of winding‑up are void; trading name forms part of company identity; Pride Milling – court’s limited discretion to validate applies only to dispositions made between lodgement of winding‑up application and grant of provisional order; payments made after provisional order cannot be validated; preference/ordinary course analysis relevant.
|
19 November 2024 |
|
Court orders unpaid capital judgment with interest limited by in duplum; surety bound after cession and settlement.
Civil procedure – authority to institute proceedings; suretyship – cession and succession in title – effect on surety’s liability; contractual interest – in duplum rule limits recoverable interest to unpaid capital; evidentiary weight of certificate of balance and need for updated, pleaded calculations.
|
19 November 2024 |
|
Reported
Interim interdict refused where bidder submitted non‑responsive tender and public interest in timely housing outweighed speculative harm.
Administrative law – tender review – interim interdict – Setlogelo/Webster test – prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; non-responsiveness (failure to meet tender specifications) fatal to bid; exhaustion of internal remedies (s 62 Systems Act); separation of powers and public interest in timely housing delivery; costs and counsel’s fees (Rules 67A, 69).
|
19 November 2024 |
|
Condonation granted for late filing of plea; exploration of mandate legality raised complex issues.
Condonation for late filing – Requirements for uplifting a bar under Uniform Rule 27 – Bona fide defense – Legality of mandate agreement.
|
19 November 2024 |
|
An exception that no cause of action is disclosed was dismissed; pleadings disclose a statutory Companies Act claim against a former director.
Companies Act — director’s statutory liability to company for contraventions of duties (ss 75, 76, 77) — exception test — whether particulars disclose cause of action — distinction from condictio furtiva/theft claims; pleadings to be read as whole; request for particulars available.
|
18 November 2024 |
|
Application to reinstate a lapsed appeal refused for unexplained delay, attorney negligence, and no prospects of success.
Civil procedure – reinstatement of lapsed appeal – condonation for failure to prosecute – factors: extent and cause of delay, prejudice, prospects of success – attorney negligence – appellate reluctance to disturb credibility and factual findings supported by expert evidence.
|
18 November 2024 |
|
Unauthorised initiation of litigation leads to dismissal and personal cost order; respondents' improper conduct limits full costs.
Sectional Titles – two-unit body corporate – authority to litigate – defective trustee resolutions – requirement of two trustee signatures for levy clearance – conveyancer effecting transfer despite invalid clearance – unauthorised litigant sued for costs – unclean hands / par delictum in costs exercise; bank’s security prejudiced if transfer cancelled.
|
18 November 2024 |
|
An FSP cannot contractually preclude statutory debarment; a s14(3) notice is preparatory (not PAJA administrative action) but reviewable for legality.
Financial services regulation – FAIS Act s14 debarment process – distinction between initiation (s14(3) notice) and final debarment (s14(1)) – initiation not administrative action under PAJA but exercise of public power reviewable under legality – FSP cannot lawfully agree not to commence debarment where duty exists – ulterior purpose ground requires clear proof.
|
15 November 2024 |
|
A post‑commencement transfer from a company account is void under s 341(2); repayment with interest and costs ordered.
Companies Act s 341(2) — dispositions after commencement of winding‑up void; banker–customer relationship/commixtio — funds in company account deemed company property; no bank agreement or earmarking — exception inapplicable; transfer by third party’s representative does not negate disposition; court may refuse validation to protect concursus creditorum.
|
14 November 2024 |
|
Defaulting third defendant held liable for defamatory media publications; plaintiffs awarded general and special damages, interest and attorney‑and‑client costs.
Defamation — publication to media and social platforms; presumption of wrongfulness once publication proven; defendant bears onus to rebut; damages in defamation compensatory and generally modest; proof of special damages by accounting records; procedural default and refusal to uplift bar — court declines further postponement; costs on attorney‑and‑client scale appropriate for abusive or dilatory conduct.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Leave to appeal refused: clause construed as enforceable restraint, rectification in reply allowed, s18 relief granted; costs for respondent.
Employment law – restraint of trade – interpretation of written restraint clause – reading in omitted word to give clause operation; Rectification – permissible in replying affidavit where answering affidavit shows party did not previously dispute written record; Section 18 Superior Courts Act – exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm established where employee solicits employer’s clients; Costs – party and party costs including counsel on scale B awarded.
|
12 November 2024 |
|
Motion to set aside antenuptial contract dismissed due to genuine disputes of fact and refusal to refer matter to oral evidence or trial.
Antenuptial contract — Alleged fraud/deceit in execution — Motion proceedings unsuitable where genuine disputes of fact exist — Plascon‑Evans rule applied — Court’s discretion under Rule 6(5)(g) to refuse referral to oral evidence/trial — Presumption caveat subscriptor and litigant as dominus litis — Costs including counsel on Scale C and Rule 70(3) costs.
|
11 November 2024 |
|
Applicant failed to establish a prima facie debt or privity; provisional winding‑up dismissed for lack of locus standi.
Companies Act — Provisional winding‑up — Opposed application — Applicant must establish indebtedness prima facie on the probabilities — Founding affidavit must disclose full case — Badenhorst rule: liquidation not for disputed debts — Kalil v Decotex approach applied — JBCC/OHSA document distinction and relevance to privity of contract — Locus standi where indebtedness genuinely disputed.
|
11 November 2024 |
|
Provisional winding-up dismissed where respondent bona fide disputed creditor’s claim and set-off defence created material factual disputes.
Company law – provisional winding-up – creditor’s s 345 demand – set-off defence based on oral agreement with insolvent spouse and nominee entity; material disputes of fact – Hülse‑Reutter test; insolvency and payments to nominee entity; late-raised statutory defences (Insolvency Act s 23(2); BCEA s 34; Matrimonial Property Act s 15(3)(b)) not entertained; abuse of process – punitive costs awarded.
|
11 November 2024 |
|
Order construed as requiring removal (with reciprocal steps); no contempt found; application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – interpretation of court orders – “secure and/or remove” construed contextually and purposively; contempt – must show breach of construed order and contemnor’s knowledge; urgency requirements; coercive/punitive contempt orders require rigorous justification.
|
11 November 2024 |
|
Whether leave to amend pleadings to recharacterise a building contract outside the Home Builders Act should be granted.
Civil procedure – amendment of particulars of claim – Uniform Rule 28(4) – amendments allowed unless mala fide or causing irremediable injustice – applicant must explain need, delay and show prima facie triable issue; Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act 95 of 1998 – definition and formalities for "homebuilders" and enrolment – inability to claim consideration without registration/enrolment; rectification requires factual basis of mutual error; estoppel/waiver cannot easily be used to circumvent statutory public‑interest prohibitions.
|
6 November 2024 |
|
Reported
A debtor who pays into a fraudster’s account remains liable; debtor must verify amended banking details before payment.
Electronic payments – cyber-fraud – misdirected payment into fraudulent bank account – debtor’s duty to verify amended banking details – payment into incorrect account does not extinguish debt – proximate cause of loss is debtor’s failure to verify – estoppel and creditor’s alleged IT negligence not established.
|
6 November 2024 |
|
A moot High Court challenge to taxi impoundments was dismissed and the applicant ordered to pay respondents' attorney-and-client costs.
• Public law – mootness and discretionary exercise to grant declaratory relief – Court will not decide academic questions absent interests of justice.• Transport law – impoundment under NLTA s87 and seizure under CPA s20/s31 – availability of impoundment fees, admission-of-guilt fines and criminal/civil remedies.• Administrative law – right of access to information and PAIA as appropriate procedure for state-held records.• Civil procedure – locus standi, joinder, and consequences of self-created urgency.• Costs – criteria for punitive attorney-and-client costs where litigation was unnecessary or improperly conducted.
|
5 November 2024 |
|
Court ordered fair-value purchase of minority interest via SAICA‑appointed valuator; valuation costs borne by the company.
Close corporation – enforcement of right of first refusal under MOU – procedure for valuation of membership interest – appointment of valuer by SAICA regional president – valuer to be member of previously disadvantaged group and to act as expert – valuation date fixed; valuation costs borne by the company; parties to bear their own legal costs.
|
5 November 2024 |
|
Reported
Applicant awarded repayment and interim anti‑dissipation orders after tracing misappropriated funds into respondent’s assets.
Fraud/misappropriation — tracing stolen funds into bank accounts and immovable property; quasi‑vindicatory claim; anti‑dissipation/interim interdicts; requirement to show intention to dissipate versus tracing/identification of fund; costs on attorney‑and‑client scale where respondent’s conduct enabled significant recovery litigation.
|
4 November 2024 |
|
A shareholders' resolution to approve already board-approved financial statements did not entitle the applicant to further s65(4) disclosure.
Companies Act s65(4) – sufficiency of explanatory material accompanying proposed resolution; Companies Act s30(3) – presentation (not shareholder approval) of annual financial statements; shareholder access to source accounting records; strike-out of affidavit material; costs where litigation caused by unnecessary resolution.
|
4 November 2024 |
|
Reported
Court dismissed bank’s Rule 46A application to execute on a primary residence as disproportionate and procedurally defective.
Rule 46A – execution against primary residence; default judgment – requirements and Practice Directive 33A compliance; service and evidentiary inconsistencies; proportionality and section 26 right of access to housing; judicial discretion to refuse or postpone execution order.
|
4 November 2024 |
|
Reported
Council's appointment of party councillors to s 80 committees is executive action, rational and intra vires; review dismissed.
Local government — s 79/80 Structures Act — appointment of councillors to committees; Administrative law — distinction between administrative action (PAJA) and executive action; Principle of legality — intra vires, rationality and procedural irrationality; Political parties’ nomination processes versus council’s statutory appointment power.
|
1 November 2024 |
|
Reported
Applicant failed to prove ownership of movable farm equipment; claim for vindicatory relief dismissed and not referred to trial.
Property law – rei vindicatio – burden to prove ownership of movable property not in possession; founding affidavit must disclose cause of action; replying affidavit may not introduce new causes; registration under Road Traffic Act not conclusive of common-law ownership; referral to trial under Rule 6(5)(g) refused where applicant fails to make prima facie case.
|
1 November 2024 |
|
|
1 November 2024 |
|
Reported
Hospital negligent in managing shoulder dystocia causing brachial plexus and hypoxic injury due to incorrect manoeuvres and poor records.
Medical negligence – shoulder dystocia – failure to refer high‑risk antenatal case; Intrapartum management – McRoberts manoeuvre not performed or improperly performed; fundal pressure applied; suprapubic pressure not applied; Causation – brachial plexus (Erb’s palsy) and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy linked to obstructed delivery and management; Medical records – inadequate contemporaneous notes undermine defendant’s ability to rebut negligence; Expert evidence – assessed for cogency, internal logic and consistency with proven facts.
|
1 November 2024 |
