South Africa Case Law

OR Tambo Airport Civilized Cab (Pty) Ltd v Airports Company South Africa (Soc) Ltd (2025/079316)

OR Tambo Airport Civilized Cab (Pty) Ltd v Airports Company South Africa (Soc) Ltd (2025/079316) [2025] ZAGPJHC 560 (9 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/079316

Judge

Smit

Urgent application to restore airport operating permits and access cards was dismissed for lack of a proper cause of action, disputed authority, and self-created urgency.

• Authority To Represent
• Urgent Interdict
• Operating Licence
• Company Constitution
• Urgent-application
• Company-authority

Lafrica Mining (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sightful Coal (1750/2022)

Lafrica Mining (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sightful Coal (1750/2022) [2025] ZAMPMHC 26 (15 May 2025)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1750/2022

Judge

KF Phahlamohlaka

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the respondent is indebted to them. The evidence showed that the agreement and payments were made between the respondent and Inzuzu Trading and Investment Coal, not the applicants. The respondent's opposition was supported by bona fide and reasonable grounds, and the existence of the alleged debt was genuinely disputed. The admissions made by Mokholo, a former director, were properly withdrawn, and the facts presented by the respondent were accepted. The court applied the Plascon-Evans rule and concluded that it would not be just an…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Company
• Just And Equitable Ground
• Bona Fide Dispute Of Indebtedness
• Joint Venture Agreement
• Authority To Represent
• Costs Order

Mvenya v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another (21/46591)

Mvenya v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another (21/46591) [2025] ZAGPJHC 406 (26 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/46591

Judge

Van Aswegen

The court held that the Legal Practice Act explicitly reserves the right of appearance in the High Court for admitted legal practitioners. Section 25 and section 33 of the Act prohibit laypersons from representing natural persons in court or preparing documents for court proceedings. The common law position, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal, is that laypersons may not represent litigants in higher courts, and the court has no discretion to deviate from this statutory restriction. The applicant's agent, Mr. De Beer, lacks the requisite legal qualification and authority to appear, regar…

Source excerpt

• Right Of Audience
• Legal Practice Act
• Layperson Representation
• Authority To Represent

Liberty Fighters Network v Core Computer Business (Pty) Ltd and Others (24942+3/2022)

Liberty Fighters Network v Core Computer Business (Pty) Ltd and Others (24942+3/2022) [2024] ZAEQC 5 (12 August 2024)

Court

Equality Court

Case number

24942+3/2022

Judge

J.S. Nyathi

The court found that the applicant, Liberty Fighters Network, failed to establish legal authority for its representative to institute proceedings on behalf of the association and its members. The Equality Court lacks jurisdiction over employment-related disputes, which fall under the Labour Relations Act and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The applicant failed to join the cabinet minister responsible for the Disaster Management Act and its regulations, resulting in a material non-joinder. The application did not meet the procedural requirements for certification as a class act…

Source excerpt

• Mandatory Vaccination Policy
• Jurisdiction Of Equality Court
• Class Action Certification
• Mootness
• Authority To Represent
• Non Joinder

Independent South African National Civic Association v Ramosie (3583/2023)

Independent South African National Civic Association v Ramosie (3583/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 30 (5 February 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3583/2023

Judge

P E Molitsoane

The court discharged a rule nisi in a rescission application after finding that the applicant’s authority to act through Dr Luyenge was seriously disputed and unresolved on the papers.

• Authority To Represent
• Rescission Of Order
• Dispute Of Fact
• Authority-to-represent
• Rescission
• Dispute-of-fact

Henning and Others v Baloyi and Others (LCC179/2021)

Henning and Others v Baloyi and Others (LCC179/2021) [2022] ZALCC 31 (6 May 2022)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC179/2021

Judge

Cowen

The Land Claims Court refused leave to intervene, finding no timely application and no pleaded basis showing a direct interest in the main land claims dispute.

• Intervention Of Parties
• Representation Of Community
• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Authority To Represent
• Joinder
• Intervention-of-parties

Peoples' Forum Against Electronic Bingo Terminals v KwaZulu-Natal Gaming and Betting Board and Others (5847/18P)

Peoples' Forum Against Electronic Bingo Terminals v KwaZulu-Natal Gaming and Betting Board and Others (5847/18P) [2018] ZAKZPHC 76 (7 December 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

5847/18P

Judge

Mngadi

The court held that the Forum’s chairperson was authorised under a 2015 resolution to bring proceedings and instruct attorneys, and it ratified prior acts.

• Authority To Represent
• Rule 7 Uniform Rules
• Power Of Attorney
• Association Litigation
• Urgent Interdict
• Rule-7

Mlezana and Others v South African Civic Organisation (3208/18)

Mlezana and Others v South African Civic Organisation (3208/18) [2018] ZAECGHC 114 (12 November 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

3208/18

Judge

Plasket

Urgent application struck from the roll for want of urgency where SANCO members challenged their removal from provincial office.

• Urgent Application Requirements
• Rule 6 12
• Prejudice To Litigants
• Authority To Represent
• Striking From Roll
• Urgent-applications

Coal of Africa Limited v Nekuvule (64389/2014)

Coal of Africa Limited v Nekuvule (64389/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 708 (12 February 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64389/2014

Judge

Ranchod

The court found that Coal of Africa Limited had established a bona fide dispute of fact regarding whether Mr Nekuvule had authority to represent the Kuvule Community in the main application. The purported authorisation was challenged by affidavits from community members denying attendance and signatures. The respondent's reliance on a previous Land Claims Court order and his status as Headman was insufficient to prove authority for this specific litigation. The court distinguished the Hlaneki case, noting that no statutory certificate or equivalent document was provided here. Given the unreso…

Source excerpt

• Authority To Represent
• Community Land Rights
• Interlocutory Application
• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act

Cathcart Residents Association v Municipal Manager for the Amahlathi Municipality and Others (3667/2013)

Cathcart Residents Association v Municipal Manager for the Amahlathi Municipality and Others (3667/2013) [2014] ZAECGHC 18 (3 April 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

3667/2013

Judge

C Plasket

The court found that the applicant's chairperson, Mr Sigidi, was duly authorised to institute proceedings, as evidenced by the association's minutes. The third respondent's membership was terminated at a meeting on 13 July 2011, and he was notified of this decision. He did not challenge the lawfulness of his expulsion for nearly three years, and therefore, the termination stands and has legally valid consequences. As a result, the third respondent ceased to be a proportional representation councillor for the applicant, and a vacancy arose. The municipal manager was obliged to notify the Elect…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Structures Act
• Termination Of Membership
• Authority To Represent
• Vacancy Declaration