South Africa Case Law

De Jager v Netcare Limited (42041/16)

De Jager v Netcare Limited (42041/16) [2024] ZAGPPHC 503 (23 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

42041/16

Judge

M P Motha

The court held that the plaintiff's objection to the surveillance evidence raised a constitutional issue regarding the right to privacy under section 14 of the Constitution. However, the procedural requirements of Rule 16A of the Uniform Rules of Court had not been complied with, as no notice of the constitutional issue had been given to the registrar to afford interested parties the opportunity to be admitted as amicus curiae. The court determined that it was not in the interests of justice to dispense with Rule 16A and directed that the plaintiff comply with the rule within seven days. The…

Source excerpt

• Right To Privacy
• Admissibility Of Surveillance Evidence
• Rule 16a Notice
• Amicus Curiae
• Damages Quantification

Nedbank Limited v Abrahams (2023-003529)

Nedbank Limited v Abrahams (2023-003529) [2024] ZAGPJHC 285 (18 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-003529

Judge

B M Gilbert

The High Court granted leave to appeal on whether section 127(8)(a) of the National Credit Act ousts High Court jurisdiction and whether Mateman is binding.

• National Credit Act
• Jurisdiction Of Courts
• Leave To Appeal
• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Binding Precedent
• Amicus Curiae

JDG Trading (Pty) Ltd v Black Sash Trust and Others (A3086/2019)

JDG Trading (Pty) Ltd v Black Sash Trust and Others (A3086/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1004 (8 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3086/2019

Judge

Nyathi

The High Court dismissed a Rule 30 application to strike an amicus curiae’s replying affidavit in a National Credit Act appeal, with costs.

• Amicus Curiae
• Replying Affidavit
• National Credit Act
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Amicus-curiae
• Replying-affidavit

M.U v W.H (2022/026981)

M.U v W.H (2022/026981) [2023] ZAGPJHC 79 (6 February 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/026981

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court refused leave to appeal against an urgent order requiring two children to be returned to their mother, and struck a later leave application from the roll.

• Urgent Child Return
• Leave To Appeal
• Interim Custody Arrangement
• Amicus Curiae
• Enforcement Of Court Order
• Family-law

Socialist Agenda of Dispossessed Africans v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (4646/22)

Socialist Agenda of Dispossessed Africans v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (4646/22) [2022] ZAGPPHC 585 (15 August 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

4646/22

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court postponed a constitutional challenge to section 43(2)(c) of the Municipal Structures Act so political parties could be notified and an amicus curiae could assist.

• Constitutional Invalidity
• Amicus Curiae
• Notice To Interested Parties
• Constitutional-invalidity
• Amicus-curiae
• Notice-to-interested-parties

Coetzee v Road Accident Fund and Others (77573/2018;4997/2020)

Coetzee v Road Accident Fund and Others (77573/2018;4997/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 320 (9 May 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

77573/2018;4997/2020

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court refused to join Mr Coetzee to RAF Full Court proceedings, holding that admission as amicus curiae was sufficient and costs should be shared.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Amicus Curiae
• Default Judgment
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Costs Orders
• Joinder-of-parties

Children's Institute v Presiding Officer of the Children's Court, District of Krugersdorp and Others (CCT 69/12)

Children's Institute v Presiding Officer of the Children's Court, District of Krugersdorp and Others (CCT 69/12) [2012] ZACC 25; 2013 (1) BCLR 1 (CC); 2013 (2) SA 620 (CC) (9 October 2012)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 69/12

Judges

Khampepe, Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob, Zondo

Rule 16A of the Uniform Rules of Court, properly interpreted, does not prohibit the introduction of evidence by an amicus curiae in the High Court. The Rule grants courts broad discretion to admit amici and to set the terms and conditions of their participation, including the reception of evidence if it serves the interests of justice. The High Court's narrow interpretation, which excluded the possibility of amici adducing evidence, is incorrect and inconsistent with both the text and purpose of Rule 16A. The role of amici curiae in constitutional litigation is to assist courts by providing r…

Source excerpt

• Amicus Curiae
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• High Court Inherent Powers
• Children's Act
• Social Assistance
• Public Interest Litigation

Zuma and Others v S (8652/2008)

Zuma and Others v S (8652/2008) [2009] ZAKZPHC 34 (16 July 2009)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

8652/2008

Judge

Nicholson

The court found that the applicant's allegations against Adv Downer and others were comprehensively denied and effectively refuted in the answering affidavits. The application was deemed vexatious and an abuse of the amicus curiae procedure, brought for ulterior purposes related to a personal feud rather than genuine public interest. The applicant's conduct, including the timing and publicity surrounding the application, was calculated to cause reputational harm and was not justified by the merits. The withdrawal of the application did not preclude a punitive costs order, as the respondent wa…

Source excerpt

• Amicus Curiae
• Withdrawal Of Application
• Punitive Costs
• Malicious Prosecution
• Fair Trial Rights

University of Witwatersrand Law Clinic v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT08/07)

University of Witwatersrand Law Clinic v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT08/07) [2007] ZACC 8; 2008 (1) SA 447 (CC); 2007 (7) BCLR 821 (CC); 2007 (8) BCLR 900 (CC) (7 June 2007)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT08/07

Judges

Moseneke, Madala, Mokgoro, Navsa, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen

The Constitutional Court held that it is not in the interests of justice to grant direct leave to appeal while an application for leave to appeal is pending in the High Court. The applicant, Mr Jeebhai, has chosen to pursue an appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal, and this choice must be respected. The Clinic, as amicus curiae, cannot take over the litigation or determine the appellate forum for the actual litigant. The applications are procedurally defective: they fail to disclose the pending application in the High Court, contrary to Rule 19(3)(d), and improperly seek to join the amicus in…

Source excerpt

• Direct Appeal
• Leave To Appeal
• Amicus Curiae
• Interests Of Justice
• Procedural Defect