South Africa Case Law

Mogale v BMW Finance Services (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (5528/2020)

Mogale v BMW Finance Services (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (5528/2020) [2024] ZALMPPHC 117 (11 September 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5528/2020

Judge

Ledwaba LGP

The court found that the opposing affidavit was not properly commissioned because the Commissioner of Oaths certificate confusingly described the deponent as both male and female, using contradictory pronouns. This irregularity created a disjoint between the deponent's declaration and the certificate, undermining the reliability of the affidavit and suggesting non-compliance with the Regulations. No supporting affidavits were provided to demonstrate substantial compliance. The court declined to condone the non-compliance and sustained the applicant's objection. The respondent was granted leav…

Source excerpt

• Commissioner Of Oaths
• Affidavit Attestation
• Regulations Governing Oaths
• Condonation Application

LexisNexis South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (2023-010096)

LexisNexis South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (2023-010096) [2024] ZAGPPHC 446; 2025 (2) SACR 36 (GP) (29 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-010096

Judge

Swanepoel

The court held that the phrase 'in the presence of' in Regulation 3 of the Regulations Governing the Administering of an Oath or Affirmation must be interpreted according to its ordinary grammatical meaning, which requires physical proximity between the deponent and the commissioner of oaths. The applicant's argument that the objectives of the Act and Regulations can be achieved by virtual means was found to be insufficient to override the clear wording of the Regulation. The court distinguished previous cases where affidavits commissioned virtually were admitted on the basis of substantial c…

Source excerpt

• Commissioner Of Oaths
• Remote Commissioning
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Substantial Compliance
• Electronic Signatures

Mailula and Another v Matsi Law Chambers Inc (Leave to Appeal) (46358/2021)

Mailula and Another v Matsi Law Chambers Inc (Leave to Appeal) (46358/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 659 (10 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

46358/2021

Judge

Sardiwalla

The High Court dismissed leave to appeal, holding the prior order was not appealable and that the respondent’s affidavits substantially complied with oath regulations.

• Leave To Appeal
• Affidavit Irregularity
• Commissioner Of Oaths
• Appealability Of Order
• Leave-to-appeal
• Appealability

Masoeu v Masoeu and Others (2039/2022)

Masoeu v Masoeu and Others (2039/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 220 (2 June 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2039/2022

Judge

M E Mahlangu

High Court judgment on contempt proceedings, holding that confirmatory affidavits were non-compliant and a supplementary affidavit filed without leave was pro non scripto.

• Contempt Of Court
• Affidavit Compliance
• Supplementary Affidavit
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Commissioner Of Oaths
• Contempt-of-court

Phumelela Local Municipality v Telkom SA SOC Limited (5327/2022)

Phumelela Local Municipality v Telkom SA SOC Limited (5327/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 204 (31 May 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5327/2022

Judge

AP Berry

The court struck out a summary judgment application because the supporting affidavit did not validly comply with oath or affirmation requirements.

• Affidavit Requirements
• Summary Judgment
• Commissioner Of Oaths
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Summary-judgment
• Affidavits

Q4 Fuel (Pty) Ltd v Ellisras Brandstof En Olie Verspreiders (Pty) Ltd and Others (HCAA 08/2021)

Q4 Fuel (Pty) Ltd v Ellisras Brandstof En Olie Verspreiders (Pty) Ltd and Others (HCAA 08/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 81 (11 November 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCAA 08/2021

Judges

Kganyago, Semenya, Muller

The court found that the order striking the application off the roll was, in substance, a dismissal of the appellant's claim, as the defects in the founding affidavit were fatal and could not be remedied by supplementation. Therefore, the order was final and appealable. The court held that the Regulations Governing the Administering of an Oath or Affirmation are directory, not peremptory, and that substantial compliance had occurred in the commissioning of the founding affidavit. The failure to insert the designation of the commissioner of oaths was not material, and the annexures need not be…

Source excerpt

• Points In Limine
• Affidavit Formalities
• Commissioner Of Oaths
• Appealability Of Striking Off Order
• Authority Of Deponent

Kouwenhoven v Minister of Police and Others (1477/2018)

Kouwenhoven v Minister of Police and Others (1477/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 154; [2019] 4 All SA 768 (WCC); 2021 (1) SACR 167 (WCC) (19 September 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1477/2018

Judges

Fortuin, Cloete

The High Court dismissed a review challenge to an extradition arrest warrant, holding the warrant lawful, the affidavit valid, and the Minister’s notification rational.

• Extradition Act
• Warrant Of Arrest
• Procedural Irregularity
• Commissioner Of Oaths
• Bad Faith And Abuse Of Process
• International Criminal Law

Mogale and Others v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (48454/2008)

Mogale and Others v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (48454/2008) [2015] ZAGPPHC 953; 2016 (2) SACR 682 (GP) (17 September 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

48454/2008

Judges

E Bertelsmann, S Mothle, F.G. Preller

The High Court set aside search warrants after finding the supporting affidavit was unsigned or improperly commissioned, making the warrants invalid.

• Search And Seizure
• Affidavit Formalities
• Commissioner Of Oaths
• Substantial Compliance
• Privacy Rights
• Search-and-seizure

Absa Bank Ltd v Botha NO and Others (39228/12)

Absa Bank Ltd v Botha NO and Others (39228/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 163; 2013 (5) SA 563 (GNP) (7 June 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39228/12

Judge

Kathree-Setiloane

The court held that the plaintiff's verifying affidavit did not comply with Rule 32(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court because the commissioner of oaths certified the deponent as male, while the deponent declared herself as female. This contradiction created uncertainty about whether the affidavit was properly attested and undermined the presumption of regularity. The court found that the burden of proof rests on the applicant to demonstrate that the document is an affidavit, and the irregularity was not a mere administrative error. The failure to attach the liquid document to the verifying aff…

Source excerpt

• Affidavit Requirements
• Summary Judgment
• Commissioner Of Oaths
• Irregular Proceedings

Dique v Viljoen (14218/2007)

Dique v Viljoen (14218/2007) [2007] ZAGPHC 206 (14 September 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

14218/2007

Judge

Nthai

Summary judgment was refused because the plaintiff failed to prove that a foreign affidavit was properly authenticated under Rule 63.

• Authentication Of Foreign Documents
• Summary Judgment
• Burden Of Proof
• Commissioner Of Oaths
• Summary-judgment
• Foreign-document-authentication