South Africa Case Law

Road Accident Fund v Mabela and Another (63050/2017)

Road Accident Fund v Mabela and Another (63050/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 383 (23 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

63050/2017

Judge

Domingo

The applicant failed to comply with procedural rules and did not provide any substantive basis for impugning the default judgments or quantum amounts. The application for stay of execution was brought only after years of inactivity and repeated defaults, and the applicant did not participate in the proceedings or provide any explanation for its conduct. The court found that the interests of justice and access to courts require enforcement of the judgments, and that the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process. No exceptional circumstances were shown to justify a stay of execution.…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Default Judgment
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Access To Courts

Setman v Minister of Police (Appeal) (2929/2021)

Setman v Minister of Police (Appeal) (2929/2021) [2025] ZAECMKHC 11 (11 February 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

2929/2021

Judges

Dawood, Collett

The court held that service of summons on the State Attorney within the three-year prescription period was sufficient to interrupt prescription, as the respondent became aware of the proceedings and actively participated by filing an appearance to defend and a plea. The purpose of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Act was achieved, and strict compliance with service on both the National and Provincial Commissioner was not required. The court adopted a purposive constitutional approach, emphasizing access to courts and the absence of prejudice to the respondent. The special pleas of prescri…

Source excerpt

• Prescription
• Service Of Process
• Purposive Interpretation
• Access To Courts

Nzuza and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (Leave to Appeal) (70192/17)

Nzuza and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (Leave to Appeal) (70192/17) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1360 (27 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

70192/17

Judge

Mlambo

Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal was granted as the explanation, though lacking in detail, was reasonable and covered the entire period of delay. The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to meet the threshold under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The invocation of section 173 of the Constitution to regulate abuse of court procedures was correct, as the delay in prosecuting the review was procedural and fell within the court's inherent jurisdiction. The test for undue delay was properly applied, with reference to…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Ndpp Decisions
• Section 173 Inherent Jurisdiction
• Undue Delay
• Access To Courts
• Condonation
• Rationality Of Prosecutorial Decisions

Liberty Holdings v Maloka and Another (Leave to Appeal) (21/19942)

Liberty Holdings v Maloka and Another (Leave to Appeal) (21/19942) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1251 (3 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/19942

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The court found that none of the grounds advanced by the applicant for leave to appeal met the statutory criteria. The applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the security for costs order or the declaration as a vexatious litigant. The limitation of the applicant's right of access to courts was justified under the Constitution due to his persistent abuse of process. The court had jurisdiction, and judicial discretion was properly exercised based on the applicant's conduct. Allegations of bias, malice, and misdirec…

Source excerpt

• Vexatious Litigation
• Security For Costs
• Access To Courts
• Judicial Discretion
• Jurisdiction
• Superior Courts Act

Wessel Hamman Trust and Others v Emfuleni Local Municipality and Another (21/31801)

Wessel Hamman Trust and Others v Emfuleni Local Municipality and Another (21/31801) [2024] ZAGPJHC 731 (13 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/31801

Judge

C Todd

The High Court dismissed a trust’s claim for constitutional damages against Emfuleni Municipality, finding no proven section 34 breach or causal link to the alleged loss.

• Constitutional Damages
• Municipal Bylaw Enforcement
• Nuisance
• Causation
• Access To Courts
• Structural Interdict

Ramatsemela v Road Accident Fund (9483/2021)

Ramatsemela v Road Accident Fund (9483/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 553 (4 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

9483/2021

Judge

Mnisi

The court held that the applicant's claim against the Road Accident Fund was instituted more than three years after the date of the accident, and she did not fall within any of the statutory exceptions to prescription under section 23(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The Prescription Act does not apply to suspend or interrupt prescription in this context, and ignorance of the law or lack of advice from the Road Accident Fund does not constitute a special circumstance to justify condonation. The applicant's reliance on Constitutional Court jurisprudence was misplaced, as her situation was dis…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Prescription
• Condonation
• Access To Courts

Minister of Police v Miya (1250/2022)

Minister of Police v Miya (1250/2022) [2024] ZASCA 71; 2025 (3) SA 130 (SCA) (6 May 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1250/2022

Judges

Mokgohloa, Meyer, Kgoele, Baartman, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that non-compliance with section 2(2)(a) of the State Liability Act, specifically the failure to serve the summons on the Minister, did not render the summons a nullity. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the Act was achieved because the Minister became aware of the proceedings and actively participated in the litigation from its inception. The Court rejected a narrow, formalistic approach to statutory interpretation, emphasizing that substantive justice and the purpose of the legislation must prevail over technicalities. The Court further found that presc…

Source excerpt

• State Liability Act
• Service Of Process
• Prescription
• Access To Courts

Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Chairperson of the Powers and Privileges Committee N.O and Others (23230/2023)

Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Chairperson of the Powers and Privileges Committee N.O and Others (23230/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 16 (30 January 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

23230/2023

Judges

Erasmus, Cloete, Thulare

The High Court struck the application from the roll after late filing and non-compliance with a court order, despite granting condonation for the replying affidavit.

• Condonation
• Late Filing
• Access To Courts
• Court Orders
• Urgent Interdict
• Late-filing

Pedlar v Santam Limited (010346/22)

Pedlar v Santam Limited (010346/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1824 (17 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

010346/22

Judge

C Marumoagae

The High Court uplifted a bar against a self-represented defendant, finding that the interests of justice required allowing him to file a plea.

• Removal Of Bar
• Condonation
• Access To Courts
• Lay Litigant Procedure
• Removal-of-bar
• Access-to-courts

Tlhabanyane v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (92483/19)

Tlhabanyane v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (92483/19) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1489 (16 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

92483/19

Judge

de Vos

The applicant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the 18-month delay in filing his plea, with none of the four explanations covering the entire period or aligning with the chronology of events. The applicant did not demonstrate bona fides or a bona fide defence, as his defences were either unfounded or dilatory. The right of access to courts under section 34 of the Constitution was not violated by the application of Rule 27, as the applicant did not challenge the constitutionality of the rule or develop the argument. The court, exercising its discretion under Rule 27, foun…

Source excerpt

• Notice Of Bar
• Condonation
• Home Loan Agreement
• Acceleration Clause
• Access To Courts
• Rule 27 Uniform Rules