South Africa Case Law

Kwagga Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Member of Executive Council for Roads and Transport of Gauteng Provincial and Others (6577/20219)

Kwagga Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Member of Executive Council for Roads and Transport of Gauteng Provincial and Others (6577/20219) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1100 (25 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

6577/2019

Judge

Van der Berg AJ

The High Court dismissed consolidated challenges to an NEC 3 adjudicator’s award, holding the award was not reviewable and the claims were unproven or out of time.

• Nec 3 Contract Dispute Resolution
• Adjudicator Jurisdiction
• Contractual Time Bar
• Certification Of Claims
• Motion Proceedings Vs Action
• Reviewability Of Adjudicator Award

Mudau v Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Others (CCT 142/22)

Mudau v Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Others (CCT 142/22) [2023] ZACC 26; 2023 (10) BCLR 1165 (CC); [2023] 11 BLLR 1109 (CC); (2023) 44 ILJ 2641 (CC) (2 August 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 142/22

Judges

Maya, Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Makgoka, Mathopo, Potterill, Rogers, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that a pension fund may not apply a rule amendment before it is registered by the Registrar of Pension Funds. The registered rules in force at the time of the member’s withdrawal are binding and must be used to calculate benefits. The Fund’s application of an unregistered amended rule to the applicant’s withdrawal benefit was unlawful and in breach of the Act and fiduciary duties. Retrospective rule amendments, once registered, do not affect legal proceedings already instituted unless the amendment expressly provides otherwise. The Adjudicator and courts must app…

Source excerpt

• Pension Funds Act
• Retrospective Rule Amendment
• Accrued Benefits
• Fiduciary Duty
• Statutory Interpretation
• Adjudicator Jurisdiction

Gonen v Trustees for the time being of The Melville Body Corporate and Others (A3025/2022)

Gonen v Trustees for the time being of The Melville Body Corporate and Others (A3025/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 363 (26 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3025/2022

Judges

Crutchfield, Dlamini

The court found that the security protocol adopted at The Melville was, in substance, a conduct rule as defined by section 10 of the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act. The protocol regulated the conduct of occupiers regarding deliveries and imposed conditions that departed significantly from existing conduct rules. The trustees and body corporate failed to follow the statutory procedure for amending conduct rules, as the protocol was not approved by special resolution nor submitted to the Chief Ombud for certification. The respondents' reliance on rule 9(e) did not cure the procedural de…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Title Schemes Management Act
• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Conduct Rules Amendment
• Scheme Governance
• Security Protocols
• Adjudicator Jurisdiction

Raschid and Another v Lenasia Tamil Association Body Corporate and Others (A3048/2021)

Raschid and Another v Lenasia Tamil Association Body Corporate and Others (A3048/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 649 (6 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3048/2021

Judges

Manoim, Gilbert

High Court appeal under the CSOS Act dismissed because the appellants’ grounds did not raise a question of law and the tariff issue lay outside the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.

• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Sectional Title Disputes
• Appeal On Question Of Law
• Adjudicator Jurisdiction
• Community-schemes-ombud-service-act
• Section-57-appeal

Framatome v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (43535/2019)

Framatome v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (43535/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 239; 2021 (2) SA 494 (GJ) (30 September 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

43535/2019

Judge

P Coppin

The court held that while the adjudicator's decision 7 was within jurisdiction and covered by the referral, decision 11 was not. The adjudicator in decision 11 answered a question not referred to him, thus exceeding his jurisdiction. The referral concerned the correctness of the project manager's assessment, not its timeliness. As a result, there is a clear and respectable case that decision 11 is invalid and unenforceable. The applicant's claims for payment and declaratory relief depend on the enforceability of decision 11, which the court declined to enforce pending arbitration. The court a…

Source excerpt

• Adjudicator Jurisdiction
• Enforcement Of Adjudicator Decision
• Construction Contracts
• Specific Performance
• Contractual Variation