South Africa Case Law

Weitz Viljoen and Associates Incorporated v Rising Dragon Consulting (Pty) Ltd t/a Antonie Consulting (14817/2024)

Weitz Viljoen and Associates Incorporated v Rising Dragon Consulting (Pty) Ltd t/a Antonie Consulting (14817/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 294 (14 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14817/2024

Judge

Nuku

The court found that the plaintiff's delay in delivering the Rule 30 application was minimal and adequately explained, with no prejudice to the defendant and significant prejudice to the plaintiff if condonation was refused. The Rule 30 application was interlocutory and not subject to the strict requirements of Rule 6(5). The defendant's delivery of a special plea, plea-over, and claim in reconvention prior to the determination of its exception constituted an irregular step under Rule 30, as the rules require a choice between delivering a plea or an exception, not both. The exception raised b…

Source excerpt

• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Condonation
• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Jurisdiction
• Locus Standi
• Authority Of Attorney

Le Bonheur Wine Estate (Pty) Ltd v Stellenbosch Vineyards (Pty) Ltd (17111/2021)

Le Bonheur Wine Estate (Pty) Ltd v Stellenbosch Vineyards (Pty) Ltd (17111/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 260 (20 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17111/2021

Judge

Moosa

The court held that subrogation does not transfer procedural rights to an insurer. Le Bonheur could replace its attorneys, and Hollard was joined as co-plaintiff.

• Insurance Subrogation
• Joinder Of Parties
• Authority Of Attorney
• Procedural Rights
• Withdrawal Of Action
• Insurance-subrogation

Symes N.O and Others v Garvelli (Pty) Ltd (2023/037126)

Symes N.O and Others v Garvelli (Pty) Ltd (2023/037126) [2025] ZAGPJHC 570 (9 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/037126

Judge

Dlamini

The High Court held that the applicants had authority to proceed, dismissed a stay application, and ordered the respondent to pay costs.

• Authority Of Attorney
• Locus Standi
• Power Of Attorney
• Temporary Stay
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Rule-7-authority

Mabhekane Trading CC v Koopmansfontein Communal Property Association and Another (3/2025)

Mabhekane Trading CC v Koopmansfontein Communal Property Association and Another (3/2025) [2025] ZANCHC 50 (16 May 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

3/2025

Judge

M C Mamosebo

The High Court discharged a rule nisi and refused final interdictory relief, finding no clear right, no proved ongoing injury, and no lack of alternative remedy.

• Lease Agreement Termination
• Final Interdict Requirements
• Breach Of Contract
• Authority Of Attorney
• Final-interdict
• Rule-nisi

Oates v South African Council For Architectural Professions and Another (A206/22)

Oates v South African Council For Architectural Professions and Another (A206/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 440 (7 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A206/22

Judge

Swanepoel

The High Court dismissed a belated Rule 7 challenge to an attorney’s authority, struck scandalous allegations from affidavits, and awarded costs.

• Authority Of Attorney
• Rule 7 Uniform Rules
• Declaratory Relief
• Condonation
• Striking Out Scandalous Matter
• Rule-7

B.M and Another v M.P and Another (78652/2015)

B.M and Another v M.P and Another (78652/2015) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1243 (25 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

78652/2015

Judge

GN Moshoana

The High Court rescinded an order made on an alleged settlement, finding the applicants’ attorney lacked authority to compromise the case.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Authority Of Attorney
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Settlement Agreement
• Absence Of Party
• Rescission-of-judgment

Zephan Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others v PLG Affected Creditors Group and Others (044345/2023)

Zephan Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others v PLG Affected Creditors Group and Others (044345/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1037 (7 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

044345/2023

Judge

SJ Cowen

The court upheld a Rule 30A challenge in part, requiring the applicants to cure defects in authority and citation, while postponing the main application sine die.

• Business Rescue
• Joinder Of Parties
• Citation Of Parties
• Authority Of Attorney
• Rule 7 Dispute
• Rule 30a Irregular Steps

South African Municipal Workers' Union v Maluti-A-Phofung Water (SOC) Ltd and Others (5265/2022)

South African Municipal Workers' Union v Maluti-A-Phofung Water (SOC) Ltd and Others (5265/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 266 (20 August 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5265/2022

Judge

Van Zyl

The High Court granted leave to appeal after striking an application from the roll over unresolved authority issues involving the applicant’s attorneys and deponent.

• Leave To Appeal
• Authority Of Attorney
• Rule 7 Notice
• Costs Order
• Leave-to-appeal
• Authority-of-attorney

Dodd N.O and Others v Duff (7789/2019P)

Dodd N.O and Others v Duff (7789/2019P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 62 (7 August 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

7789/2019P

Judge

Mossop

The High Court refused condonation for late heads of argument, set aside a taxing master’s allocatur and writ, and sent the bill of costs back for opposed taxation.

• Condonation
• Taxation Of Costs
• Rescission Of Allocatur
• Practice Directives
• Authority Of Attorney
• Taxation-of-costs

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality ; In re: Unlawful Occupiers: 1 Argyl Street and Others v Rohlandt Holdings CC and Others (CCT 228/22)

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality ; In re: Unlawful Occupiers: 1 Argyl Street and Others v Rohlandt Holdings CC and Others (CCT 228/22) [2024] ZACC 10; 2025 (1) SA 1 (CC) (31 May 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 228/22

Judges

Zondo CJ, Chaskalson AJ, Dodson AJ, Kollapen J, Mathopo J, Rogers J, Schippers AJ, Tshiqi J

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court erred in refusing rescission of the consent order. The consent order did not comply with the requirements set out in Eke v Parsons, as it failed to resolve the main dispute, was not constitutionally or statutorily compliant, and did not confer a practical or legitimate advantage. The City had not complied with the Local Government Ordinance and the Constitution regarding municipal acquisition of property, and its attorney lacked authority to consent to the order. Estoppel could not operate to bind the City in the face of statutory non-complian…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Procurement
• Authority Of Attorney
• Consent Orders
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Unlawful Occupation
• Local Government Ordinance