South Africa Case Law

Shepstone and Wylie Attorneys v De Witt N.O. and Others (CCT 171/23)

Shepstone and Wylie Attorneys v De Witt N.O. and Others (CCT 171/23) [2025] ZACC 14 (1 August 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 171/23

Judges

Maya CJ, Madlanga ADCJ, Kollapen J, Majiedt J, Mathopo J, Rogers J, Theron J, Tolmay AJ, Tshiqi J

The Constitutional Court held that the Supreme Court of Appeal misapplied and misstated the law regarding trustee decision-making. The Trust Deed, as interpreted, allowed for decisions to be made at a quorate meeting of two trustees, provided reasonable notice was given to all trustees. The requirement for unanimity applied only to specific powers, such as conducting business in a commercial sense (item 26 of the appendix), and not to all trustee decisions. The resolution to execute the deed of suretyship was validly passed at a properly convened meeting, and the subsequent signing by two tru…

Source excerpt

• Trust Deed Interpretation
• Suretyship Authorisation
• Majority Vs Unanimity
• Resolution Validity
• Trustee Powers

Ramatsetse-Moloi v Shiremane and Others (2025-110223)

Ramatsetse-Moloi v Shiremane and Others (2025-110223) [2025] ZAGPPHC 770 (1 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-110223

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court struck an urgent application from the roll because the applicant failed to prove urgency, with unresolved executorship and marriage issues left for later proceedings.

• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Customary Law Marriage
• Letters Of Executorship
• Striking From The Roll
• Urgency-in-motion-proceedings
• Customary-law-marriage

Fourie v Botha and Others (500/2024)

Fourie v Botha and Others (500/2024) [2025] ZANCHC 70 (1 August 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

500/2024

Judge

Olivier AJ

The High Court awarded party-and-party costs after an urgent application, but refused punitive attorney-and-client costs for lack of a proper founding case.

• Costs Award
• Attorney And Client Scale
• Party And Party Scale
• Interim Relief
• Urgent Application
• Civil-procedure

Road Accident Fund v McLachlan N.O (5936/2021)

Road Accident Fund v McLachlan N.O (5936/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 328 (1 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5936/2021

Judge

Nuku

The defendant failed to provide a proper explanation for the withdrawal of its admission and did not address the plaintiff's objections, including the risk of injustice and prejudice to the plaintiff. The court found that the application for amendment was not made in good faith and would cause an injustice to the plaintiff that could not be remedied by a costs order. The defendant did not demonstrate entitlement to the amendment, and the application was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Withdrawal Of Admission
• Prejudice
• Good Faith
• Costs Order

Mbeki and Another v Calata and Others (005245/2025)

Mbeki and Another v Calata and Others (005245/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 753 (1 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

005245/2025

Judge

Millar

The High Court dismissed Thabo Mbeki and Brigitte Mabandla’s bid to intervene, holding they lacked a direct and substantial interest in the main case.

• Intervention Under Uniform Rule 12
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Commission Of Inquiry
• Constitutional Damages
• Political Interference
• Truth And Reconciliation Commission Cases

Mereki and Others v Moladora Trust and Another (CCT 121/24)

Mereki and Others v Moladora Trust and Another (CCT 121/24) [2025] ZACC 16 (1 August 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 121/24

Judges

Madlanga ADCJ, Dambuza AJ, Goosen AJ, Kollapen J, Majiedt J, Opperman AJ, Rogers J, Theron J, Tshiqi J

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants, as ESTA occupiers, had a right to graze cattle on the farm based on tacit consent, which was protected under ESTA. The Court found that the Trust failed to rebut the statutory presumption of consent triggered by the applicants' uninterrupted residence and use of the land. The termination of grazing rights constituted a deprivation of land use and required compliance with section 8 of ESTA. The Trust's reliance on common law termination was unlawful, as ESTA's procedural safeguards applied to both residence and associated land uses such as gra…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Tacit Consent
• Termination Of Land Rights
• Eviction Procedure
• Constitutional Interpretation
• Presumption Of Consent

Corruption Watch (RF) NPC v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 333/23)

Corruption Watch (RF) NPC v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 333/23) [2025] ZACC 15 (1 August 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 333/23

Judges

Madlanga ADCJ, Dambuza AJ, Goosen AJ, Kollapen J, Mhlantla J, Opperman AJ, Rogers J, Theron J, Tshiqi J

The National Assembly failed to comply with its constitutional obligation to facilitate reasonable public involvement in the appointment of Commissioners to the Commission for Gender Equality. The information provided to the public was insufficient, as the CVs of shortlisted candidates were not published, and the justification based on POPIA was incorrect. The 14-day comment period was unreasonably short, and the use of an online form with a character limitation further restricted meaningful participation. These procedural deficiencies rendered the appointment process unconstitutional. The ap…

Source excerpt

• Public Participation
• Appointment Of Chapter 9 Commissioners
• Access To Information
• Protection Of Personal Information Act
• Remedial Orders
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation

T.S v J.V.C.P and Another (20783/24)

T.S v J.V.C.P and Another (20783/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 325 (1 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20783/24

Judge

Njokweni

The applicant failed to establish the jurisdictional facts necessary for an anti-dissipation interdict. There is no objective evidence that the respondent is intentionally dissipating or secreting assets to defeat the applicant's claims. The respondent continues to meet his maintenance obligations for the minor child and has not abdicated his responsibilities. The applicant's apprehension of harm is not supported by the facts, and her conduct in disposing of joint assets for personal benefit undermines her case. The balance of convenience favours the respondent, and the applicant has alternat…

Source excerpt

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Spousal Maintenance
• Child Maintenance
• Community Of Property Dispute
• Abuse Of Process

Greater Taung Local Municipality v Office of the Public Protector and Others (89658/2018)

Greater Taung Local Municipality v Office of the Public Protector and Others (89658/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 776 (1 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

89658/2018

Judge

Kooverjie

The court found that Mr Bloem’s answering affidavit should be condoned due to his reasonable explanation for delay and the interests of justice. The complaint to the Public Protector was lodged within the statutory period, as evidenced by meetings in April and September 2014. The court rejected the Municipality’s argument that the protected disclosure complaint was an afterthought, finding a clear link between Mr Bloem’s whistleblowing and his dismissal. The Public Protector had jurisdiction to investigate the complaint under Section 182(1) of the Constitution and the Protected Disclosure Act…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosure Act
• Jurisdiction Of Public Protector
• Unfair Dismissal
• Remedial Action
• Condonation
• Occupational Detriment

Rakgwale v Minister of Police and Another (41173/2020)

Rakgwale v Minister of Police and Another (41173/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 757 (1 August 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

41173/2020

Judge

K MVUBU

The court found that the Plaintiff's arrest was lawful, as the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the Plaintiff of committing a Schedule 1 offence (robbery with aggravating circumstances), and the arrest was effected in accordance with section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Plaintiff conceded the lawfulness of the arrest during proceedings. The statement of the arresting officer was admitted into evidence as hearsay under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as its reliability and probative value outweighed any prejudice to the Plaintiff. The Pla…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Malicious Prosecution
• Section 40 Criminal Procedure Act
• Hearsay Evidence
• Costs Order