South Africa Case Law

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Naude (2020/22584)

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Naude (2020/22584) [2025] ZAGPJHC 194 (27 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/22584

Judge

A W Pullinger

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a full, detailed, and accurate account of the causes of the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal, as required by established principles. The explanation was general, lacked primary facts, and did not account for significant periods of inactivity. The deponent to the founding affidavit had no personal knowledge of the facts, further undermining the application. The applicant also failed to consider the prejudice to the respondent, who had a legitimate interest in the finality of the matter. On the merits, the applicant's conte…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Leave To Appeal
• Loss Of Support
• Contributory Negligence
• Best Evidence Rule

Gil v Gil (2022/037219)

Gil v Gil (2022/037219) [2025] ZAGPJHC 29 (20 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/037219

Judge

Goedhart AJ

Leave to appeal was refused in a challenge to an arbitration award over family business disputes, with the court finding no gross irregularity or fair-hearing breach.

• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Condonation
• Gross Irregularity
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Fair Hearing
• Best Evidence Rule

Desiderio v Joffe and Others (37219/2022)

Desiderio v Joffe and Others (37219/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 785 (21 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

37219/2022

Judge

Goedhart

The court found that Desiderio Gonćalves Gil failed to provide a reasonable and complete explanation for the four-month delay in filing his counter-application. He was represented by attorneys well before the relevant dates, and the absence of a certified transcript did not prevent timely filing, as the audio record was available. The court held that his explanation was inadequate and did not cover the entire period of delay. On the merits, the court determined that the alleged gross irregularity—failure to apply the best evidence rule—did not amount to a procedural irregularity as required b…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act Section 31
• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Arbitration Act Section 38
• Condonation
• Gross Irregularity
• Best Evidence Rule

Goldleaf Investments (Pty) Ltd v Orkin (22321/18)

Goldleaf Investments (Pty) Ltd v Orkin (22321/18) [2024] ZAGPJHC 695 (22 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22321/18

Judge

MIA

Leave to appeal was dismissed in a dispute over a tacit term requiring a fully serviced site, electrical supply delays, and claimed damages.

• Leave To Appeal Standard
• Tacit Terms
• Damages For Delay
• Best Evidence Rule
• Leave-to-appeal
• Tacit-terms

Van Baalen and Another v ABSA Bank (22652/2022)

Van Baalen and Another v ABSA Bank (22652/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 26 (3 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22652/2022

Judge

E M Kubushi

The court held that the failure to annex true copies of the written credit agreements to the particulars of claim, as required by Uniform Rule 18(6), does not render the claim excipiable where the agreements have been misplaced and the respondent has pleaded the material terms and explained the inability to annex the documents. The substantive law does not preclude enforcement of a written contract merely because it is lost or destroyed. The respondent's particulars of claim set out sufficient terms to enable the excipients to plead thereto, and the issue of the agreements' existence and term…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 18 6
• Credit Agreements
• Pleadings Requirements
• Best Evidence Rule
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement

S v Thabethe and Others (Appeal) (08/2022)

S v Thabethe and Others (Appeal) (08/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 306 (3 August 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

08/2022

Judge

Gusha

The court held that the questions sought to be reserved by the State were, in substance, questions of fact disguised as questions of law. Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires strict compliance, including clear factual findings and accurate framing of the legal point. The applicant failed to identify proven facts upon which the legal questions hinged, instead rehashing evidence in chief without accounting for cross-examination or the trial court's factual findings. The court found that the application was filed within a reasonable time but that none of the questions raised met th…

Source excerpt

• Section 319 Reservation Of Law
• Section 174 Discharge
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Best Evidence Rule
• Common Purpose
• Section 204 Indemnity

Geiger Enterprise (Pty) Ltd v Crestar Printers & Publishers (Pty) Ltd (26037/2021)

Geiger Enterprise (Pty) Ltd v Crestar Printers & Publishers (Pty) Ltd (26037/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 275 (21 April 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

26037/2021

Judge

N Davis

Leave to appeal was dismissed in an eviction dispute. The court held the applicant proved ownership, rejected the respondent’s lien arguments, and awarded attorney-and-client costs.

• Sectional Title Scheme
• Eviction Order
• Enrichment Lien
• Best Evidence Rule
• Business Rescue
• Costs Award

Matshane v Road Accident Fund (RAF234/16)

Matshane v Road Accident Fund (RAF234/16) [2019] ZANWHC 40 (22 March 2019)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

RAF234/16

Judge

D I Matlapeng

The High Court held that expert evidence was enough to prove loss of support after a fatal road accident, and awarded the plaintiff past and future damages.

• Loss Of Support
• Quantification Of Damages
• Road Accident Fund Amendment Act
• Best Evidence Rule
• Loss-of-support
• Road-accident-fund

Silverstone and Another v Absa Bank Limited (66156/12)

Silverstone and Another v Absa Bank Limited (66156/12) [2018] ZAGPPHC 321 (10 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

66156/12

Judge

Petersen

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for their default, as no affidavit from the correspondent attorney was submitted and no formal complaint was lodged. The applicants' reliance on the absence of the original loan agreement and the excipiability of secondary evidence was rejected, as the substantive law allows for secondary evidence where the original contract is destroyed. The court held that the applicants' defences lacked merit and were raised solely to frustrate the respondent's claim. Accordingly, the application for rescission of…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42
• Default Judgment
• Secondary Evidence
• Mortgage Bond
• Best Evidence Rule

Limpopo Provincial Treasury v General Public Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR1355/14)

Limpopo Provincial Treasury v General Public Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR1355/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 81 (2 March 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1355/14

Judge

S. July

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside an arbitration award after finding gross irregularity in the refusal of postponement and the exclusion of evidence.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Arbitration Review
• Gross Irregularity
• Hearsay Evidence
• Postponement
• Best Evidence Rule