|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2025 |
|
|
Claim for repayment dismissed because plaintiff failed to prove contractual terms and calculate the amount owed.
Contract law — claimant seeking payment must plead and prove contract terms and show how claimed sum falls within those terms; where primary documentary schedule is blank and calculation methodology is unexplained, claim may fail; absolution from the instance appropriate where plaintiff cannot establish indebtedness.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Applicant granted urgent interim relief to prevent respondents relying on unsigned accreditation documents and to restore accredited verification scope.
Administrative law – interim interdict – requirements for interim relief where organ of state involved; OUTA clearest‑of‑cases test not automatically applicable. Accreditation law – accreditation certificate validity – statutory requirement of CEO (or designee) signature under Accreditation Act. Designation – regulator must rely on valid SANAS accreditation when issuing verification designations. Urgency – prompt institution of proceedings after respondents’ August 2025 actions. Costs – successful applicant awarded costs, including two counsel; public body criticised for unfounded allegations.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Owner entitled to cancel month‑to‑month tenancy and eject occupant after lease expiry where oral extensions were unproven and reasonable notice given.
Commercial lease – written fixed‑term lease expired by effluxion of time – renewal option required written notice and was not validly exercised.* Oral variation – alleged oral extensions uncorroborated and insufficient to import further five‑year terms.* Holding over – in absence of valid fixed‑term renewal, occupation continued month‑to‑month and was terminable on reasonable notice.* Termination – landlord entitled to cancel month‑to‑month tenancy by reasonable notice and to obtain ejectment.* Costs – opposing party’s unsupported delay can justify punitive attorney‑and‑client costs.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Final interdict granted for online defamation; respondent held in contempt, joinder and stay dismissed, punitive costs ordered.
Defamation – online/social media and book publication – requirements for actionable defamation and balancing with s 16 freedom of expression; Interim interdicts – requirements for final interdict (clear right, injury, lack of alternative remedy); Contempt of court – wilful, mala fide non‑compliance and appropriate punitive sanction; Stay of execution – principles and discretionary refusal where application lacks merit; Joinder – necessity test; Costs – attorney‑and‑client scale for vexatious or abusive conduct; Procedure – inadmissibility of late supplementary affidavits absent Rule 6(5)(e) indulgence.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Urgent provisional winding‑up granted after funds were diverted, tendered repayment accepted but not honoured, and no bona fide dispute established.
Company law – Winding‑up – Urgent provisional winding‑up where large advance payments were diverted and no services rendered; accepted but dishonoured tender amounts to admission of indebtedness; right to silence in civil proceedings does not bar adverse inference or disclosure in liquidation inquiries; bona fide dispute test (Kalil) not met.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Determination of appropriate earning parameters and contingency deductions for a minor’s future loss of earnings after a motor vehicle injury.
Delict — Personal injury — Future loss of earning capacity for a minor — Determination of appropriate pre‑ and post‑accident earning parameters and discretionary contingency deductions — Use of joint expert minute and actuarial reports — RAF Amendment Act cap not applicable.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Where actuarial scenarios conflict, court may average calculations and award loss of earnings on a rough estimate.
Delict – loss of earnings – where future damages cannot be precisely calculated court may use an informed guess/rough estimate; averaging multiple actuarial calculations where experts offer competing scenarios; contingency deductions – 20% applied; costs – party-and-party with counsel on scale B.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Both the red-light turn and the following driver’s failure to keep proper lookout resulted in equal apportionment of liability.
Delict — Road Accident Fund — rear-end collision at intersection; disobedience of red traffic light; duty to keep proper lookout; contributory negligence; apportionment of liability (50/50); costs (party-and-party, counsel on scale B).
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed: s163 equitable relief available despite alleged s45 nullity; applicants had standing.
Companies Act — s 163(1)(c) and s 163(2) — equitable remedies to set aside or reverse transactions and award compensation; Companies Act — s 75 breaches render contracts voidable and attract s 163 relief; Companies Act — s 45/s 77 remedies, personal liability and prescription (s 77(7)); locus standi under s 163 v derivative/company remedy under s 165; leave to appeal — reasonable prospects and compelling reason test under s 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act; appellate fairness — inability to raise new factual basis (s 45) not pleaded at trial.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Applicant cannot obtain leave to appeal on causes of action she deliberately abandoned in the lower court.
Practice — leave to appeal — applicant who abandoned pleaded causes of action cannot later obtain leave to appeal on basis court failed to decide those abandoned causes; appellate review confined to issues decided below; revival of abandoned contentions on appeal limited and may introduce unfairness; section 17(1) Superior Courts Act — reasonable prospects/compelling reasons requirement.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where plaintiffs failed to prove unlawful arrest or malicious prosecution; onus rested on plaintiffs.
Civil damages — wrongful arrest and detention — s 40(1)(b) CPA — jurisdictional facts and onus once suspicion formed; malicious prosecution — requirement that prosecution be terminated in claimant's favour; absence of malice; strike from roll not equivalent to withdrawal or acquittal.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Default judgment refused where plaintiff’s case rested on inadmissible double hearsay without primary witness testimony.
Defamation – Default judgment – inadmissibility of double hearsay – Law of Evidence Amendment Act s3 – Rule 31(2)(a) oral evidence – interests of justice exception not satisfied where hearsay goes to the core of the claim.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Whether the applicant was unlawfully shot, arrested and detained by police and whether the State is vicariously liable.
Police powers — Arrest without warrant (s40(1)(b) CPA) — Reasonable suspicion requires solid grounds; suspicion must be critically assessed. Use of force — section 49 CPA — Deadly force permissible only if immediate threat or reasonable suspicion of crime involving serious bodily harm and no other reasonable means of arrest; force must be necessary and proportionate. Burden of proof — Once deprivation of liberty or injury established, State must justify. Vicarious liability — Minister liable for wrongful acts of SAPS member acting in course of employment. Evidence — Late reopening of defendants’ case refused where material witnesses absent and no adequate explanation.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
Minor awarded R1,575,564 for future loss of earnings; 15% contingency applied; RAF s17(4)(a) undertaking ordered.
• Road Accident Fund – liability conceded – principal issue quantum for minor’s future loss of earnings; • Evidence – admission of late Rule 38(2) expert affidavits in absence of opposition; • Quantum – actuarial valuation for future loss of earnings; application of contingency deduction (15%) guided by sliding-scale authorities and child-specific uncertainties; • RAF Act s17(4)(a) – respondent to furnish undertaking for future medical/treatment costs; • Costs – taxed/party-and-party costs with specified expert disbursements; curator ad litem to investigate fund management.
|
15 October 2025 |
|
Identical registered trade mark use constitutes infringement without proving confusion; prior continuous use defence not established.
Trade Marks Act s34(1)(a) – identical marks – no requirement to prove likelihood of deception or confusion; infringement established by unauthorised identical use. Trade Marks Act s36 – defence of continuous and bona fide prior use; onus on respondent to prove continuous use on a balance of probabilities. Trade Marks Act s27(1)(a) – partial expungement for lack of bona fide intention/non-use; requires genuine dispute and proper motive.
|
15 October 2025 |
|
Court enforces NCA pre-litigation and registration requirements: execution granted against surety, guarantee and mortgage void for unregistered transferee.
Civil procedure – Rule 46A application to declare immovable property specially executable; National Credit Act — required pre-litigation notice under s129(1) and mandatory court-regulated regularisation under s130(4)(b) where notice is served during litigation; s40(1) registration requirement for credit providers — transferees who give value and effectively provide credit must be independently registered; non-registration renders credit agreements unlawful under s40(4) and court must grant just and equitable relief under s89(5); amendment and Rule 46A relief dismissed as to guarantor where requirements unmet.
|
15 October 2025 |
|
Single-witness testimony, identification and common purpose upheld convictions; life sentences under the minimum regime were appropriate.
Criminal law – sexual offences – gang rape and kidnapping – single-witness evidence; contradictions with prior statements; J88 showing no acute injuries; identification of known perpetrators; common purpose and joint liability; minimum sentence (life) applied and upheld.
|
13 October 2025 |
|
Appellate court reduced an excessive cumulative 15-year sentence to an effective eight years, ordering concurrency and backdating.
Criminal law – Sentence – consecutive versus concurrent sentences – court’s duty to consider section 280 CPA and the totality principle before imposing cumulative imprisonment. Sentencing principles – triad of crime, offender and interests of society; appellate interference where sentence is disproportionately severe or court misdirects itself. Theft/fraud – abuse of trust, premeditation and prior dishonesty aggravate sentence; nevertheless totality must be observed. Backdating of imprisonment to date of original sentencing in lower court.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Oral side-agreement proved; DVRA void under s15(7) but SPV1 severed to preserve funder’s 9% interim voting entitlement.
Companies Act s15(7) – shareholders’ or directors’ agreements inconsistent with MOI are void to extent of inconsistency; severability – severing void reference in finance document to preserve funder’s seat; Plascon-Evans – oral side-agreement limiting voting percentage (9%) proved and binding; retrospective validation – later MOI amendment cannot revive a provision void at inception; relief – declarator severing, declaration of DVRA void, limited interim recognition of oral agreement, costs each party own.
|
9 October 2025 |
|
Prescription for the plaintiff’s unlawful arrest/detention claims began on arrest; a s3 Notice did not interrupt prescription.
Prescription – unlawful arrest and detention – three-year period (s11(d), s12(1)) – prescription begins on arrest for unlawful arrest; each day of detention is a separate debt – s12(3) requires knowledge of material facts not legal conclusions – s3 Notice (Act 40/2002) is pre-litigation and does not interrupt prescription under s15(1).
|
8 October 2025 |
|
Court declares the contested 2017 will invalid for lack of the testator’s authentic signature; 2011 will upheld.
Wills and succession – authenticity of signature – forensic document examination identifying fundamental differences – uncontradicted expert opinion accepted; single witness evidence assessed for credibility; negative inference for failure to call available rebuttal expert; earlier will declared operative.
|
8 October 2025 |
|
Appellate court upheld conviction and life sentence, finding a single child witness credible and no substantial and compelling reasons to reduce sentence.
Criminal law – Rape of a child under 16; single child witness – cautionary approach; corroboration by complainant’s mother and medical evidence; appellate deference to trial credibility findings; sentencing – prescribed life imprisonment; substantial and compelling circumstances; repeat offender and breach of familial trust as aggravating factors.
|
7 October 2025 |
|
The applicant's delictual claim dismissed: fall occurred outside tenant's control and the respondent’s disclaimer bound the applicant.
Delict — duty of care in respect of common areas — lease allocating exclusive control to landlord; disclaimer notices — enforceability and quasi‑mutual assent; contributory/causative negligence where plaintiff chose undesignated parking and proceeded into darkness; onus to prove wrongfulness, fault and causation.
|
6 October 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or bona fide, triable defences; leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Rule 27(1) – upliftment of bar – requirement of "good cause" including bona fide defence with prospects of success; Superior Courts Act s17(1)(a) – stringent leave threshold; lease interpretation – non-variation and non-setoff clauses precluding withholding of rental; utility charge disputes – evidentiary proof and meters; belated supplementary defences and rectification – not triable if unpleaded, opportunistic and contradicted by contract.
|
3 October 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where applicants failed to show reasonable prospects on an s163 unfairly prejudicial claim.
Companies Act s163 – unfairly prejudicial conduct – distinction between specific act/omission and manner of conducting affairs – need for proof of identifiable course of conduct; consultancy agreements – contractual termination and loss of practice rights; leave to appeal – no reasonable prospects; costs against applicant who sought and abandoned separation.
|
3 October 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal a costs-only order refused; no misdirection shown and applicants ordered to pay costs.
Practice — leave to appeal costs-only orders — heightened threshold for appellate interference; discretionary nature of costs; withdrawal/abandonment of proceedings as a factor in costs; overlap with related proceedings to be raised at trial.
|
3 October 2025 |
|
Applicant granted leave to appeal on whether a significantly upgraded forklift qualifies as a motor vehicle under the RAF Act.
Road Accident Fund Act — definition of "motor vehicle" — requirement that vehicle be "designed for road propulsion" — effect of improved forklift design and safety features — expert evidence on design — leave to appeal to SCA granted where precedent ambiguous and prospects of success exist.
|
2 October 2025 |
|
No-cession clause operates inter partes; tacit assignment suspended enforcement, entitling applicant to continue until 30 November 2025.
Contract law – pactum de non cedendo (no-cession clause) operates inter partes; tacit assignment may suspend enforcement of no-cession; non-variation clause does not bar suspension; arbitration clause inapplicable where constitutional/procurement and s172(1) issues arise; burden to plead and prove procurement illegality; reasonable notice required to terminate suspension; legitimate expectation to be heard rejected in context of circumvention of public procurement.
|
1 October 2025 |
| September 2025 |
|
|
A non-bidding applicant failed to establish prima facie right and irreparable harm for an interim interdict halting the tender award.
Public procurement – interim interdict against awarding of tender – exceptional justification required to restrain exercise of statutory/executive procurement powers. Interim interdict – requirements: prima facie right, reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, balance of convenience, no other satisfactory remedy. Urgency – self-created urgency considered but application entertained on papers. Standing and joinder – non-bidder’s standing and non-joinder of existing bidders noteworthy for substantive review. Allegations of undue influence/incumbent advantage – speculative allegations insufficient to establish reviewable misconduct. Vagueness in tender documents – test is reasonable certainty; other bidders’ ability to bid relevant to fairness assessment.
|
30 September 2025 |
|
Leave to appeal a costs-only order refused; no material misdirection shown and costs follow the result.
Practice — leave to appeal under s 17(1) Superior Courts Act — costs-only appeal where merits not challenged — appellate interference requires material misdirection; interlocutory costs — relevance of Rules 67A(2) and 41A; delay and unmeritorious exceptions as factors in costs exercise.
|
30 September 2025 |
|
Whether s6 of the Divorce Amendment Act excludes proceedings instituted after commencement or applies to all pending actions meeting its criteria.
Statute interpretation – Divorce Amendment Act s6 – temporal scope of remedial legislation – whether 'already instituted' requirement imported from interim order – purposive, contextual and textual interpretation (Endumeni; Auckland Park).
|
29 September 2025 |
|
Plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, assault or malicious prosecution; absolution granted with costs.
Civil liability — Arrest and detention — s 40(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Act — reasonable suspicion and jurisdictional facts; Absolution from instance — Claude Neon test; Malicious prosecution — elements (instigation, reasonable and probable cause, malice, failure of prosecution); Striking off the roll ≠ failure of prosecution; Requirement for corroboration/medical evidence for assault claims.
|
29 September 2025 |
|
Court finds a tacit universal partnership, awards plaintiff 20% share and includes property’s accrued value in partnership assets.
Family law – Universal partnership between cohabitants – Tacit partnership: Pothier essentials and ‘more probable than not’ test (Ponelat, Butters) – equitable apportionment of shares – inclusion of accrual/increase in house value (societas universorum quae ex quaestu veniunt) – appointment and powers of liquidator/receiver – same-sex partners equal treatment.
|
26 September 2025 |
|
Default judgment against a trust rescinded due to lack of trustee authority and defective service.
Civil procedure – rescission of default judgment – requirements at common law: reasonable explanation and bona fide defence with prospects of success – service/domicilium – authority of trustee to bind trust – estoppel, ostensible authority and Turquand rule – effect of trustee’s misrepresentation – costs where respondent in business rescue and counter-application withdrawn.
|
18 September 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove a reasonable prospect of rescue; business rescue conversion dismissed; provisional liquidators liable for wasted costs.
Business rescue — s131(7) Companies Act — conversion of liquidation to business rescue — "reasonable prospect" test (Oakdene) — applicant must place factual foundation in motion papers; speculative valuations insufficient. Secondary goal requires objectively better return for all creditors, not merely earlier realisation. Delay in liquidation due to parallel proceedings does not alone justify conversion. Costs: late answering affidavit condoned but wasted costs ordered personally against provisional liquidators.
|
18 September 2025 |
|
Appeal lapsed for non-prosecution; default summary judgment must be rescinded, not appealed; new evidence on appeal refused.
Appeal – lapse for failure to prosecute under Rule 50; default summary judgment not appealable but rescindable (Pitelli); admission of new evidence on appeal – s 19(b) Superior Courts Act; condonation refused where appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success; costs against unsuccessful appellants.
|
17 September 2025 |
|
Applicant granted provisional winding‑up; court found jurisdiction and business rescue did not suspend proceedings.
Companies law — Winding‑up of insolvent companies under transitional Schedule 5/old Companies Act — dual jurisdiction where registered office or principal place of business; Business rescue — s 131(6) suspends liquidator’s actions only and does not preclude granting a provisional winding‑up order; Provisional winding‑up — creditor must establish prima facie indebtedness and commercial insolvency; bona fide, reasonable dispute required to defeat order; Costs on Scale B.
|
17 September 2025 |
|
Late exception permitted; counterclaim excipiable for failing to plead wrongfulness, causation and party-specific losses.
Civil procedure — Exception to counterclaim; failure to disclose cause of action; vagueness and embarrassment of pleading; pure economic loss — requirement to plead wrongfulness and causation (Hlumisa); Rule 26 notice of bar and timing of pleadings; amendment or setting aside; costs against excipiens.
|
16 September 2025 |
|
Court granted actio communi dividundo, appointed a receiver to sell the property and distribute proceeds, and ordered costs against respondent.
Property law – Actio communi dividundo – Co-owner entitled to division where no agreement to remain co‑owners and co‑ownership unwanted. Appointment of Receiver and Liquidator – Court may appoint an agent with broad powers to value, sell and distribute proceeds. Family law – Best interests of minor children – Family Advocate report relevant but does not bar sale; children's welfare to be considered in execution of sale. Maintenance – Alleged arrear maintenance must be proved; Receiver empowered to adjust proceeds if arrears are established.
|
16 September 2025 |
|
Municipal failure to allow applicant to respond to public objections breached PAJA procedural fairness; decision set aside and remitted.
Administrative law — PAJA — Applicability of PAJA to municipal decisions to alienate immovable property; Procedural fairness — s3(2)(b)(ii) — right to reasonable opportunity to make representations in response to public participation objections; Legitimate expectation — "in-principle" approval; Public participation and municipal asset disposal; Review and remittal; Costs awarded to applicant.
|
15 September 2025 |
|
Applicant’s interim interdict dismissed; substantive review and declaratory relief postponed for expedited Part B hearing.
Administrative law – procurement and tenders – implementation of apparently lawful municipal decisions despite pending challenge; interim interdictory relief against implementation of statutory decisions requires clearest of cases and favourable balance of convenience; self-review, functus officio and requirement for court-based setting aside of vested contract rights; alternative remedies and damages as adequate relief.
|
15 September 2025 |
|
Whether a counterclaim may be introduced by amending pleadings and when an irregular amendment must be set aside.
Civil procedure – counterclaim to counterclaim permissible where original claim withdrawn; Rule 24(1) requires counterclaims to be delivered with plea or by leave; Rule 28(1) amendments cannot be used to introduce new counterclaims; Rule 30(1) irregular-step relief requires prejudice affecting future conduct; court may condone irregular steps in absence of substantial prejudice to further litigation.
|
15 September 2025 |
|
Prolonged pre-trial detention and State disclosure failures constituted exceptional circumstances justifying bail; leave to appeal refused.
Bail — section 60(11)(a) CPA — exceptional circumstances — prolonged pre-trial detention and State disclosure failures; Pre-trial judicial management — role vs protagonist (distinguishable from S v Mabena); Leave to appeal — s65A CPA and s17(1) Superior Courts Act — reasonable prospects required; Interests of justice balancing (S v Schietekat).
|
15 September 2025 |
|
RAF ordered to compensate plaintiff for medically necessary laser scar treatment performed by a non-registered skin care therapist.
Road Accident Fund – Damages – Past medical expenses – Laser scar treatment – Whether service by non-registered healthcare provider claimable – Interpretation of RAF Act – No statutory exclusion for non-registered provider – Requirement for necessity and reasonableness of expense – Expert and factual unanimity as to medical appropriateness.
|
12 September 2025 |
|
The applicant’s attempt to strike out the respondent’s rescission action as an abuse of process was dismissed.
Abuse of process – test for striking out as "obviously unsustainable"; Acquisition of domicile – domicile of choice and evidence required; Matrimonial Property Act s15(2),(4),(5) – third‑party reliance on absence of written and attested spousal consent; Ratification – whether later ratification cures defect and what constitutes a "reasonable time"; Admissibility/condonation – late affidavit of conveyancer admitted.
|
12 September 2025 |
|
Applicant reasonably launched urgent extension application; late answering affidavit condoned and first respondent ordered to pay costs including two counsel.
Costs — condonation of late affidavit — late answering affidavit admitted in interests of justice — condonation costs awarded against respondent; Costs — urgent application for extension of subdivision approval — applicant acted reasonably in launching and not withdrawing application; Costs scale — contractual clause seeking attorney-and-client costs not applied; court orders costs against respondent including costs of two counsel (senior scale C, junior scale B).
|
12 September 2025 |
|
A director-creditor’s urgent business rescue application was dismissed for lack of standing and reasonable prospect of rescue, leading to liquidation.
Company law – Business rescue – Section 131 application – Standing of applicant as creditor – Whether suretyship amounts to creditor status – Reasonable prospect of rescue – Requirements for urgent application – Final liquidation as alternative to business rescue.
|
11 September 2025 |
|
A review of an environmental authorisation for a wind farm was dismissed as the process was found procedurally fair and substantially compliant.
Environmental law – Judicial review – Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) – Environmental Authorisation – National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) – Proper consideration of visual, tourism, and avifaunal impacts – Interpretation of Regulation 11(3) and 11(4) – Distinction between ‘same development’ and ‘interrelated activities’ for environmental assessment process – Procedural fairness – Substantial compliance with statutory requirements – Biowatch principle on costs in public interest environmental litigation.
|
9 September 2025 |
|
Appeal against conviction and life sentence for rape of a minor dismissed due to lack of consent and mitigating circumstances.
Criminal law – Rape of minor – Validity of consent where accused is an authority figure – Prescribed minimum sentence – Substantial and compelling circumstances – Absence of violence not constituting a mitigating circumstance – Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
|
8 September 2025 |
