Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search
background image
profile image

High Court of South Africa Western Cape, Cape Town

Currently serving on the bench:

Judge President N P Mabindla-Boqwana

Deputy Judge President P L Goliath

Judge N C Erasmus

Judge R Allie

Judge T C Ndita

Judge A Le Grange

Judge V C Saldanha

Judge C M J Fortuin

Judge M I Samela

Judge R C A Henney

Judge M J Dolamo

Judge J I Cloete

Judge B P Mantame

Judge K M Savage

Judge G Salie Da Silva

Judge L Nuku

Judge E D Wille

Judge T Papier

Judge M K Parker

Judge M Sher

Judge S Kusevitsky

Judge H M Slingers

Judge M Francis

Judge N Mangcu-Lockwood

Judge J D Lekhuleni

Judge D M Thulare

Judge C N Nziweni

Judge M Holderness

Judge M Pangarker

Judge N E Ralarala

 

Physical address
Physical: 35 Keerom Street, Cape Town, 8000 Post: Private Bag X 9020, Cape Town, 8001
Visit website
https://www.judiciary.org.za/index.php/courts/high-courts/western-cape-division-of-the-high-court/contact-details
9 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
9 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
April 2024
Fookwe v Road Accident Fund (23481/2016) [2024] ZAWCHC 61 (29 April 2024)
RAF cannot rely on s19(d)(i), Medical Schemes regulations or internal ICD directives to avoid paying past medical expenses.
• Road Accident Fund Act s 17/19(d)(i) – recovery of past medical expenses paid by medical schemes – limits on RAF’s exclusionary argument; subrogation and supplier/third-party claims. • Medical Schemes Act regs 7–8 – do not oust claimant’s right to recover past medical expenses from RAF. • Administrative law – internal RAF directives (ICD-coding) cannot be applied retrospectively or without procedural fairness/notification. • Evidence – admissibility, causation and proof determine recoverability of specific medical items.
 29 April 2024
Adelakun NO and Another v Worldpay LLC ; Touch of Fame Group and Another v Worldpay LLC and Others (3484/19; 3485/19) [2024] ZAWCHC 66 (26 April 2024)
26 April 2024
Baseline Civil Contractors (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (A83/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 60 (26 April 2024)
A taxpayer may not raise on appeal a new objection to a different part of the assessment than originally objected.
Tax procedure – Tax Court Rules – rule 32(3) (amended) – new grounds of appeal permissible only if they relate to the same part or amount objected to under rule 7; distinction between deduction and gross income; Matla Coal, ITC authorities and HR Computek support substance test; Capitec not decisive on rule scope.
 26 April 2024
Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Lazercor Eight (Pty) Ltd and Others (15688/2020) [2024] ZAWCHC 58 (24 April 2024)
Reported
Intervenors lacked standing; court may not order BRP fee forfeiture and found no gross negligence.
Business rescue – intervention and standing – limits on affected persons after business rescue ends – reflective loss; Business rescue practitioner – remuneration (s 143) – court lacks inherent power to order forfeiture of BRP fees; BRP liability – section 140(3)(c)(ii) requires gross negligence; Costs de bonis propriis – not justified where settlement/order fixes costs; Rescission – wilful default bars relief; Strike out – application dismissed, further affidavit admitted.
 24 April 2024
SACTWU Investments Group (Pty) Ltd v Sekunjalo Independent Media (Pty) Ltd and Another (6290/19) [2024] ZAWCHC 59 (24 April 2024)
Director had authority to sign subordination; misrepresentation/mistake failed; in duplum caps capitalised interest.
Company law – actual and ostensible authority of director to bind company; Contract law – caveat subscriptor, iustus error and misrepresentation; Corporate finance – auditor‑requested subordination agreements; Civil/commercial – in duplum rule applies to capitalised (arrear) interest.
 24 April 2024
Noordhoek Environmental Action Group v City of Cape Town and Others (4819/21) [2024] ZAWCHC 57 (23 April 2024)
Failure to commission a dedicated amphibian report was not a fatal flaw; environmental authorisation was lawfully granted and upheld.
Environmental law – NEMA/EIA Regulations – adequacy of specialist studies – endangered species (Western Leopard Toad) – mitigation and monitoring – rationality review – cumulative impacts – public participation – appointment and independence of EAPs – administrative fairness.
 23 April 2024
De Wit and Others v De Wit N.O and Others (8370/23) [2024] ZAWCHC 56 (10 April 2024)
Serious family breakdown from discretionary vesting powers was unforeseen, but did not justify trust termination or trustee removal.
Trusts – s13 Trust Property Control Act – two-stage test: unforeseen consequences and objective hampering of founder's objects or prejudice to beneficiaries; discretionary vesting and distribution clauses (clauses 1.8, 7.3) – family acrimony may be unforeseen but does not automatically justify termination; s20 removal of trustee – requires imperilment of trust property or administration; termination an extraordinary remedy.
 10 April 2024
Dark Fibre Africa (Pty) Ltd v Bluecentrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Smartswitch (20345/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 62 (9 April 2024)
Applicant proved indebtedness and interrupted prescription; respondent failed to bona fide dispute debt, so final liquidation granted.
Companies law – Winding‑up – s344(f) and s345 demand – admissions in contemporaneous correspondence – bona fide dispute and Badenhorst principle – evidentiary approach at final liquidation (Plascon‑Evans considered) – interruption of prescription by tacit acknowledgement (s14 Prescription Act).
 9 April 2024
Poulter v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (A88/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 54 (2 April 2024)
Tax Court is an administrative court of revision; lay authorised representatives may appear and the appeal is remitted for rehearing.
Tax law – Tax Court characterised as an administrative "court of revision", not a "court of law". Procedural law – Authorised representatives in Tax Court proceedings may be laypersons; Tax Court rules contemplate non‑legal representatives. Legal Practice Act – Its prohibitions on lay appearances do not automatically apply to the Tax Court because that court is outside the constitutional judicial system. Civil procedure – Rule 44(7) cannot be applied where an authorised representative appears; interlocutory procedural rulings excluding representation are recallable and reviewable.
 2 April 2024