South Africa Case Law

City Tshwana Metropolitan Municipality v Kleinot N.O. and Others (Leave to Appeal) (JR1946/23; JR1946/23)

City Tshwana Metropolitan Municipality v Kleinot N.O. and Others (Leave to Appeal) (JR1946/23; JR1946/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 314 (15 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1946/23

Judge

S Snyman

The court found that neither SAMWU nor IMATU advanced proper legal grounds or demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The authorities relied upon by the court regarding exemption principles apply equally to the public and private sectors, as the LRA does not distinguish between them. The financial expert's role was not substantiated, and the panellist's findings were based on a misdirection regarding affordability. The respondents failed to provide contradictory financial information, and their arguments regarding collective bargaining and the application of the affordability…

Source excerpt

• Collective Bargaining
• Exemption From Wage Agreement
• Leave To Appeal
• Review Of Administrative Decision
• Affordability Test

Dr Waa Gouws (Johannesburg) v HR Computek (Pty) Ltd and Others (909/2023)

Dr Waa Gouws (Johannesburg) v HR Computek (Pty) Ltd and Others (909/2023) [2025] ZASCA 103 (15 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

909/2023

Judges

Mbatha, Mothle, Hughes, Unterhalter, Modiba

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 354(1) of the Companies Act does not exclude the common law rights of a company or its directors to apply for rescission of a winding-up order. The directors retain residual powers to act on behalf of the company in liquidation, including challenging or appealing winding-up orders, without the cooperation of liquidators. The application for rescission may be brought under common law or Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court, which is not restricted to liquidators, creditors, or members. The high court was correct in finding that HR Computek h…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Winding Up
• Rescission Of Order
• Directors Residual Powers
• Fiduciary Duties
• Companies Act 1973

Chibane and Another v Premier of Province of Kwazulu-Natal (DA15/2024)

Chibane and Another v Premier of Province of Kwazulu-Natal (DA15/2024) [2025] ZALAC 44 (15 July 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA15/2024

Judges

Van Niekerk, Tokota, Basson

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court does not have general jurisdiction to intervene in incomplete disciplinary proceedings or to grant declaratory relief regarding delay and waiver unless specifically conferred by statute. The pleadings did not invoke any statutory provision or contractual basis for the claims advanced, and no permissible ground for review was articulated. The Labour Court was correct to refuse to entertain the review application in medias res, as there is a general rule against reviewing interlocutory rulings mid-process absent exceptional circumstances. The a…

Source excerpt

• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Unreasonable Delay
• Waiver Of Rights
• Review Of Interlocutory Ruling

Mankuroane and Others v Buti and Others (M164/23)

Mankuroane and Others v Buti and Others (M164/23) [2025] ZANWHC 118 (15 July 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M164/23

Judge

A Reddy

The court found that the applicants, as the Paramount Chief, Traditional Council, and registered cooperative, have locus standi as persons in charge and lawful custodians of the land under both statutory and customary law. The respondents are unlawful occupiers, having no permission or legal right to occupy the land, and have continued their occupation despite previous court orders. The applicants failed to serve the required PIE notice on the third and fourth respondents, rendering the application against them fatally defective. The remaining respondents have not raised a valid defence, and…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Customary Land Rights
• Locus Standi
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Municipal Services
• Public Interest Litigation

Brilliant Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd v Altron TMT (Pty) Ltd and Others (042792/2023)

Brilliant Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd v Altron TMT (Pty) Ltd and Others (042792/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 713 (14 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

042792/2023

Judge

Lenyai

The High Court refused Brilliant Telecommunications’ application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reason.

• Leave To Appeal
• Reasonable Prospect Of Success
• Costs Order
• Leave-to-appeal
• Superior-courts-act
• Reasonable-prospects-of-success

Letsu v Firstrand Bank Limited and Others (18367/2020)

Letsu v Firstrand Bank Limited and Others (18367/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 293 (14 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18367/2020

Judge

Nuku

Costs judgment in a Rule 46A matter over sale-in-execution and bond cancellation figures. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs in the application.

• Sale In Execution
• Mortgage Bond Cancellation
• Costs Award
• Rule 46a Application
• Rule-46a
• Sale-in-execution

Northern Cape Livestock Vryburg Co-op Ltd v Grootbos Voerkrale (Pty) Ltd and Another (1880/2023)

Northern Cape Livestock Vryburg Co-op Ltd v Grootbos Voerkrale (Pty) Ltd and Another (1880/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 117 (14 July 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1880/2023

Judge

Oosthuizen-Senekal

The High Court upheld an exception to amended particulars of claim, finding the damages pleading too vague to assess, and gave the plaintiffs 20 days to amend.

• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Quantification Of Damages
• Rule 18 Uniform Rules
• Exception Procedure
• Delictual Liability
• Commercial Loss

Barnard and Another v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (9952/2019)

Barnard and Another v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (9952/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 705 (14 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

9952/2019

Judge

Nicholson

The High Court held the State liable after a Working for Water herbicide treatment contaminated irrigation water and damaged crops on a Limpopo farm.

• Contamination Of Property
• Wrongful And Negligent Conduct
• Duty Of Care
• Off Label Herbicide Application
• Statutory Liability
• Contributory Negligence

23 Laurel Street Properties v Lethabo Village Body Corporate and Another (1568/2025)

23 Laurel Street Properties v Lethabo Village Body Corporate and Another (1568/2025) [2025] ZAFSHC 215 (14 July 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1568/2025

Judge

Buys AJ

The court found that the impugned resolutions adopted by the first respondent exempting the applicant from levy contributions on unoccupied units were ultra vires and void ab initio, as they contravened the statutory obligations imposed by the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act and its regulations. The body corporate is required by law to levy contributions on all owners, and no power exists to exempt any owner, including a developer, from this duty. The applicant's reliance on prior conduct and the issuance of R0-00 clearance certificates for other units does not override the statutory…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act
• Levy Collection
• Ultra Vires Resolutions
• Clearance Certificates

Weitz Viljoen and Associates Incorporated v Rising Dragon Consulting (Pty) Ltd t/a Antonie Consulting (14817/2024)

Weitz Viljoen and Associates Incorporated v Rising Dragon Consulting (Pty) Ltd t/a Antonie Consulting (14817/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 294 (14 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14817/2024

Judge

Nuku

The court found that the plaintiff's delay in delivering the Rule 30 application was minimal and adequately explained, with no prejudice to the defendant and significant prejudice to the plaintiff if condonation was refused. The Rule 30 application was interlocutory and not subject to the strict requirements of Rule 6(5). The defendant's delivery of a special plea, plea-over, and claim in reconvention prior to the determination of its exception constituted an irregular step under Rule 30, as the rules require a choice between delivering a plea or an exception, not both. The exception raised b…

Source excerpt

• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Condonation
• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Jurisdiction
• Locus Standi
• Authority Of Attorney