South Africa Case Law

Khambule v Absa Bank Limited (2019/003137)

Khambule v Absa Bank Limited (2019/003137) [2025] ZAGPJHC 638 (25 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/003137

Judge

E Raubenheimer

The applicant failed to satisfy the stringent test for leave to appeal under Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Her denial of entering into the second loan agreement and registration of the mortgage bond was unsupported by evidence, particularly in light of the registered bond and power of attorney in the Deeds Office. The respondent was entitled to rely on secondary evidence for summary judgment, and the applicant's contentions did not rise above a mere possibility of success or an arguable case. No compelling reason, such as a significant question of law or public importance, was adv…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Mortgage Bond
• Leave To Appeal
• Bona Fide Defence
• Access To Justice

Skulpad and Another v Department of Health Eastern Cape and Others (PR139/21)

Skulpad and Another v Department of Health Eastern Cape and Others (PR139/21) [2024] ZALCPE 45; [2025] 1 BLLR 70 (LC); (2025) 46 ILJ 193 (LC) (30 October 2024)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

PR139/21

Judge

P N Kroon

Section 24 of the Labour Relations Act does not strip employees of their common law right to refer disputes about the application and interpretation of collective agreements. The arbitrator's ruling, which relied on the interpretation that only unions may refer section 24 disputes, was based on flawed precedent and a misreading of the statutory language. The distinction between 'party to the dispute' and 'party to the collective agreement' is clear in the Act, and the broad wording allows employees with a direct and substantial interest to refer such disputes. The exclusion of employees from…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Collective Agreements
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Access To Justice
• Constitutional Rights
• Review Of Arbitration Awards

Keele v Legal Practice Council and Others (1930/2021)

Keele v Legal Practice Council and Others (1930/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 727 (2 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

1930/2021

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court set aside a taxed bill of costs, the consequent writ of execution, and the attachment of the applicant’s vehicle after finding Rule 30 process had been cut short.

• Setting Aside Writ Of Execution
• Taxation Of Costs
• Irregular Step
• Rule 30 Procedure
• Rule 42 Variation
• Access To Justice

Fenyane v Ndengane and Others (19397/2022)

Fenyane v Ndengane and Others (19397/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 248; 2024 (5) SA 212 (GJ) (11 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19397/2022

Judges

Vally, Adams, Dosio

The majority held that the term 'appear' in section 25(3) of the Legal Practice Act refers to appearance before judges of the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, or Constitutional Court, not to appearance before taxing masters. The court found that a taxing master is a quasi-judicial official, not a judicial officer as contemplated in section 166 of the Constitution, and their powers are derived from Uniform rule 70, which does not require attorneys to have rights of appearance to represent clients before taxing masters. The court reasoned that a purposive and constitutional interpretation o…

Source excerpt

• Legal Practitioners Right Of Appearance
• Interpretation Of Legal Practice Act
• Access To Justice
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Rolls v Road Accident Fund (22243/2022)

Rolls v Road Accident Fund (22243/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1218 (20 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22243/2022

Judge

Holland-Muter

The High Court held that a contingency fee agreement was invalid because it tried to apply only part of the Contingency Fees Act and ignored its limits.

• Contingency Fee Agreement
• Contingency Fees Act
• Access To Justice
• Contingency-fee-agreement
• Contingency-fees-act
• Access-to-justice

Applications for admission as amicii curiae by various UN bodies and Human Rights Watch: In re certification application by various applicants and others v Anglo American SA (Ltd) (2020/32777)

Applications for admission as amicii curiae by various UN bodies and Human Rights Watch: In re certification application by various applicants and others v Anglo American SA (Ltd) (2020/32777) [2022] ZAGPJHC 935 (25 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/32777

Judge

Maier-Frawley

High Court decision granting UN bodies leave to intervene as amici curiae, while dismissing Human Rights Watch’s application in a class-action certification matter.

• Admission Of Amicus Curiae
• Class Action Certification
• Guiding Principles On Business And Human Rights
• Duty Of Care
• Access To Justice
• International Human Rights Standards

First Rand Bank Ltd v Mostert and Another; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Meyer and Another; Nedbank Ltd t/a MFC v Makhatini (4050/18 ;3269/19 ; 3166/19)

First Rand Bank Ltd v Mostert and Another; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Meyer and Another; Nedbank Ltd t/a MFC v Makhatini (4050/18 ;3269/19 ; 3166/19) [2020] ZAMPMHC 35; [2020] 4 All SA 126 (ML) ; 2020 (6) SA 543 (ML) (30 July 2020)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

4050/18 ;3269/19 ; 3166/19

Judge

Brauckmann

The court held that, to promote access to justice and equality as required by the Constitution and the National Credit Act, civil actions and applications arising under the NCA that fall within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Courts must be instituted in those courts. The NCA, interpreted purposively and in light of constitutional values, demonstrates legislative intent to make the Magistrates’ Court the court of first instance for NCA matters, regardless of the monetary amount claimed. Consent clauses purporting to confer High Court jurisdiction are unlawful where the Magistrates’ Court…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Forum Selection
• Access To Justice
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Consumer Protection
• Specific Performance

Mkuyana v Road Accident Fund (4000/2017)

Mkuyana v Road Accident Fund (4000/2017) [2020] ZAECGHC 73; [2020] 3 All SA 834 (ECG); 2020 (6) SA 405 (ECG) (2 July 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

4000/2017

Judges

D Van Zyl, G H Bloem, A Rawjee

The court held that the contingency fee agreement between the plaintiff and her attorney was invalid and unenforceable due to non-compliance with the Contingency Fees Act. The attorney's disclosed 'normal fee' was found to be unreasonable, being significantly higher than both the existing and proposed court tariffs, and not justified by the evidence. The agreement was concluded after litigation had commenced, which undermined statutory requirements such as the client's cooling-off period and proper assessment of the claim's prospects. The court emphasized that strict compliance with the Act i…

Source excerpt

• Contingency Fee Agreements
• Attorney And Own Client Costs
• Reasonableness Of Fees
• Judicial Oversight Of Fee Agreements
• Access To Justice

Bhala Traditional Council v Dumezweni and Others (3486/2018)

Bhala Traditional Council v Dumezweni and Others (3486/2018) [2020] ZAECMHC 17 (3 June 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3486/2018

Judge

M.S. Jolwana

The court found that the respondents unlawfully subdivided, demarcated, and allocated land within the applicant's jurisdiction without following the prescribed customary procedures. The respondents' bare denials and failure to engage substantively with the applicant's detailed allegations did not create a genuine dispute of fact. The applicant established a clear right to protect the customary practice of land allocation and prevent lawlessness. The points in limine raised by the respondents regarding non-joinder, misjoinder, and the authority of the deponent were rejected as lacking merit an…

Source excerpt

• Customary Land Allocation
• Final Interdict
• Joinder And Misjoinder
• Locus Standi
• Rule Of Law
• Access To Justice

Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Kekana; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Mbedu; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Mayaphi; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Mbha; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Van Zyl; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Rodgers (19167/19; 16945/19; 16365/19; 17242/19; 14294/19; 21309/18)

Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Kekana; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Mbedu; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Mayaphi; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Mbha; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Van Zyl; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Rodgers (19167/19; 16945/19; 16365/19; 17242/19; 14294/19; 21309/18) [2020] ZAWCHC 44 (25 May 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19167/19; 16945/19; 16365/19; 17242/19; 14294/19; 21309/18

Judge

Thulare

The court held that the forum selection clauses in the credit agreements were valid and enforceable. These clauses required that proceedings be instituted in the Magistrates' Court having jurisdiction where the defendant resides or works, provided the amount fell within the Magistrates' Court's jurisdiction. The High Court's jurisdiction was not ousted but delayed, and the parties' agreement did not contravene public policy or statutory provisions. The National Credit Act and Magistrates' Courts Act support the Magistrates' Court as the court of first instance for credit agreement disputes. T…

Source excerpt

• Forum Selection Clause
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• National Credit Act
• Concurrent Jurisdiction
• Access To Justice