South Africa Case Law

Bella Rosa Three Home Owners Association v Brandt and Others (A39/2023)

Bella Rosa Three Home Owners Association v Brandt and Others (A39/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 267 (6 September 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A39/2023

Judges

Mangcu-Lockwood, Saldanha

The Court held that the CSOS adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the dispute regarding building penalties, as the Act provides a broad dispute resolution mechanism for financial issues in community schemes, including penalties. The first respondent's application was not time-barred under section 41(1) because she did not seek an order declaring a decision void, but rather challenged the fairness and validity of the penalties. The appellant failed to afford the first respondent an opportunity to remedy the breach or make submissions, despite the constitution contemplating possible agreem…

Source excerpt

• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Building Penalties
• Procedural Fairness
• Contractual Obligations
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Appeal On Question Of Law

Shakoane v Community Schemes Ombud Service and Others (A23/2023)

Shakoane v Community Schemes Ombud Service and Others (A23/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1825 (20 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A23/2023

Judges

Bam, Pretorius

The court found that the appellant was not properly notified of the application by the third respondent, nor was he afforded an opportunity to make written submissions, in breach of the audi alteram partem rule and section 43 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act. The Ombud's reliance on email service was insufficient, as there was no evidence of receipt or prior arrangement for service by email. The court held that the interests of justice warranted condonation for the late filing of the appeal, as the appellant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay. The adjudicator's order wa…

Source excerpt

• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Condonation
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Service Of Process
• Appeal On Question Of Law

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

Stenersen and Tulleken Administration CC v Linton Park Body Corporate and Another (A3034/2018)

Stenersen and Tulleken Administration CC v Linton Park Body Corporate and Another (A3034/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 387; 2020 (1) SA 651 (GJ) (24 October 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3034/2018

Judges

K E Matojane, L R Adams, P L Nobanda

The Full Court held that an appeal under section 57 of the CSOS Act is an appeal in the ordinary strict sense, limited to questions of law. The High Court is confined to the record before the adjudicator and the reasons for the order. The appeal does not permit a re-hearing of factual issues or the introduction of new evidence. The procedure for such appeals is to bring them by way of notice of appeal, setting out the grounds succinctly, and serving the notice on the respondent parties by the sheriff. Both the adjudicator and CSOS must be cited as respondents. The adjudicator or CSOS may file…

Source excerpt

• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Statutory Appeal
• Appeal On Question Of Law
• Practice Directives
• Adjudicator Powers

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Moloi (1101/2015)

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Moloi (1101/2015) [2017] ZASCA 78; 2017 (2) SACR 177 (SCA) (2 June 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1101/2015

Judges

Maya, Theron, Dambuza, Molemela, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in law by failing to consider all relevant and admissible evidence, including the direct testimony of the complainant and her sister, and by focusing exclusively on the DNA evidence. This constituted a fundamental error of law, as a court must evaluate the totality of the evidence before reaching a verdict. The failure to do so vitiated the proceedings in the High Court. The appeal was upheld on the first question of law, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Regional Court were reinstated, and the matter was remitted to the High…

Source excerpt

• Appeal On Question Of Law
• Evaluation Of Evidence
• Chain Of Custody
• Dna Evidence
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Leave To Appeal

Seedat v S (731/2015)

Seedat v S (731/2015) [2016] ZASCA 153; 2017 (1) SACR 141 (SCA) (3 October 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

731/2015

Judges

Tshiqi, Seriti, Saldulker, Mathopo, Fourie

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the conviction for rape was supported by credible and corroborated evidence, including the complainant's testimony, medical findings, and circumstantial facts. The appellant's arguments regarding compensation requests and DNA evidence did not undermine the reliability of the complainant's account. The High Court erred in law by imposing a suspended sentence and compensation order without specifying a term of imprisonment, contrary to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Act. Section 297(1) does not apply to offences with prescribed minimum sentence…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum Sentences
• Restorative Justice
• Compensation Order
• Appeal On Question Of Law