South Africa Case Law

Van Rensburg Pathologists Incorporated v Rampana (A70/2013)

Van Rensburg Pathologists Incorporated v Rampana (A70/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 191 (19 December 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A70/2013

Judges

C Van Zyl, S Ebrahim

The High Court found that the Magistrate's Court did have jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's claim for specific performance and damages arising from breach of an employment contract, as such claims are not exclusively reserved for the Labour Court under the Labour Relations Act. The mere fact that the contract was an employment contract did not oust the Magistrate's Court's jurisdiction. However, the appellant was not entitled to proceed by way of application proceedings in the Magistrate's Court, as the Act only permits application proceedings in limited, specifically sanctioned circu…

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Specific Performance
• Contractual Damages
• Application Vs Action Proceedings
• Labour Relations Act
• Employment Contract Breach

Birch, Sidney Bonnen t/a LF Birch & Son v Santam Ltd (712/2011)

Birch, Sidney Bonnen t/a LF Birch & Son v Santam Ltd (712/2011) [2011] ZAECPEHC 60 (30 September 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

712/2011

Judge

Revelas

The High Court held that the insured’s stop-payment instruction amounted to repudiation, so the short-term policy was not in force when the fire loss occurred.

• Insurance Contracts
• Repudiation
• Declaratory Relief
• Policy Cancellation
• Short Term Insurance
• Application Vs Action Proceedings

Howard v Herrigel NO and Another (130/89)

Howard v Herrigel NO and Another (130/89) [1991] ZASCA 7; 1991 (2) SA 660 (AD); [1991] 2 All SA 113 (A) (8 March 1991)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

130/89

Judges

Joubert, Smalberger, Nestadt, Kumleben, Goldstone

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, in application proceedings, the court must accept the respondent's version of disputed facts unless the applicant elects to refer the matter for oral evidence or trial. On Howard's version, he did not have knowledge of the fraudulent conduct or the absence of security for investments, and he relied on the assurances of Smith and Gelb. While Howard may have been negligent in not taking more active steps to verify the company's affairs, negligence does not suffice for liability under section 424(1), which requires recklessness or knowing participation. The…

Source excerpt

• Reckless Trading
• Director Liability
• Section 424 Companies Act
• Application Vs Action Proceedings
• Fiduciary Duties
• Proof Of Knowledge