South Africa Case Law

Giftwrap Trading (Pty) Ltd v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd and Others (1009/2020)

Giftwrap Trading (Pty) Ltd v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd and Others (1009/2020) [2023] ZASCA 47; 2023 (4) SA 68 (SCA) (4 April 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1009/2020

Judges

Van der Merwe, Gorven, Mabindla-Boqwana, Olsen, Siwendu

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 42(1)(c) of RICA does not permit disclosure of customer information by service providers for the purpose of identifying wrongdoers prior to the institution of legal proceedings. The provision only allows disclosure when the information is required as evidence in pending court proceedings. The court rejected the development of the common law to allow pre-litigation disclosure, finding that RICA is a comprehensive statutory framework that strictly regulates the circumstances under which customer information may be disclosed. The precedent set in Nam…

Source excerpt

• Regulation Of Interception Of Communications Act
• Customer Information Disclosure
• Statutory Interpretation
• Preliminary Disclosure
• Common Law Development

Lebea v Menye and Another (CCT 182/20)

Lebea v Menye and Another (CCT 182/20) [2022] ZACC 40; 2023 (3) BCLR 257 (CC) (29 November 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 182/20

Judges

Zondo, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Rogers, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant, as a witness who was not a party to the proceedings, did not have a direct and substantial interest in the order made by the Magistrates’ Court. His interest was limited to the adverse credibility finding, which is not sufficient to justify intervention under rule 28(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Rules. The Court reaffirmed that appeals lie only against orders, not against reasons or findings, and that broadening the test for intervention would have far-reaching and undesirable consequences for the administration of justice. The Court declined…

Source excerpt

• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Leave To Intervene
• Human Dignity
• Magistrates Court Rules
• Common Law Development

Road Accident Fund v Mcdonnell In re: Mcdonnell v Road Accident Fund (13183/2015)

Road Accident Fund v Mcdonnell In re: Mcdonnell v Road Accident Fund (13183/2015) [2022] ZAWCHC 116 (9 June 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13183/2015

Judge

DM Thulare

The High Court dismissed the RAF’s rescission application, holding that its non-attendance was self-created and did not justify relaxing common-law rescission rules.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Common Law Development
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Public Interest Litigation
• Rescission-of-judgment

Van Meyeren v Cloete (636/2019)

Van Meyeren v Cloete (636/2019) [2020] ZASCA 100; [2020] 4 All SA 358 (SCA); 2021 (1) SA 59 (SCA) (11 September 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

636/2019

Judges

Cachalia, Wallis, Mocumie, Ledwaba, Weiner

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defence to actio de pauperie should not be extended to exempt the owner from liability where harm is caused by the animal due to the negligence of a third party who does not have custody or control of the animal. The court found that the rationale for strict liability is that, as between the owner and the innocent victim, the owner should bear responsibility for harm caused by their animal. The alleged intruder's involvement was speculative and not proven on a balance of probabilities. The court reaffirmed that absence of fault is not a defence to act…

Source excerpt

• Actio De Pauperie
• Strict Liability
• Defences To Animal Owner Liability
• Common Law Development
• Negligence Of Third Party

McLennan-Smith and Others v Mannaru and Others (10977/2014)

McLennan-Smith and Others v Mannaru and Others (10977/2014) [2020] ZAKZDHC 17; [2020] 3 All SA 814 (KZD) (30 April 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

10977/2014

Judge

D Pillay

The court found that, under the common law, beneficiaries of a servitude cannot unilaterally erect a security gate across a servitude without the owner's consent, as this constitutes an encroachment and imposes a prohibited burden. However, the oral agreement between the parties permitted a temporary gate, and the plaintiffs' security concerns are genuine. The law must balance the plaintiffs' right to security with the defendant's property rights, applying a reasonable use standard. The court recognised the need to develop the common law to accommodate modern security needs, provided such dev…

Source excerpt

• Servitude Rights
• Security Gate Encroachment
• Rectification Of Title Deeds
• Common Law Development
• Constitutional Property Rights

Bhengu and Others v G4S Cash Solutions (SA) (Pty) Ltd (34196/2014)

Bhengu and Others v G4S Cash Solutions (SA) (Pty) Ltd (34196/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 355 (28 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34196/2014

Judge

P.A. Meyer

The court held that the existence of the novel legal duty asserted by the plaintiffs—namely, a duty on the part of an employer to act fairly in dealings with employees—entails a policy decision and value judgment. Such a determination should only be made after the hearing of evidence at trial and not on exception, which is based solely on the allegations in the particulars of claim. The exception procedure requires the facts pleaded to be accepted as true, and the defendant failed to show that the claim is bad in law. Therefore, the exception was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Novel Legal Duty
• Pure Economic Loss
• Vicarious Liability
• Dismissal
• Strike Action
• Common Law Development

Quebos Investments (Pty) Ltd v Camelot Holdings CC and Another (67081/2014)

Quebos Investments (Pty) Ltd v Camelot Holdings CC and Another (67081/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1022 (3 November 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

67081/2014

Judge

Louw AJ

The court found that the Petroleum Products Act and its regulations do not alter the common law position regarding lease renewal or confer possessory rights on retail licence holders. There was no contractual obligation on the applicant to negotiate or renew the lease with the respondents. The facts of this case differ materially from those in Everfresh, as there was no term requiring negotiation. The common law principle that a court cannot make a contract for the parties remains applicable. The court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different…

Source excerpt

• Petroleum Products Act
• Lease Termination
• Retail Licence Nature
• Common Law Development
• Good Faith In Contract
• Rei Vindicatio

T v Road Accident Fund (2013/22829)

T v Road Accident Fund (2013/22829) [2014] ZAGPJHC 229; 2015 (1) SA 609 (GJ) (26 September 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/22829

Judge

R Sutherland

The court held that although the adoption order extinguished Dirk's legal status as Verushca's parent, the evidence established that he continued to act as her father and provided financial support throughout her life, both before and after the adoption. The common law has evolved to recognise a duty of support in relationships akin to family, where such a duty is voluntarily assumed. The morality of society supports the protection of such duties, and the law should give effect to reasonable expectations arising from voluntary undertakings of support. Accordingly, the court declared that Dirk…

Source excerpt

• Duty Of Support
• Adoption Effects
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Loss Of Support
• Common Law Development

Dessie v Firstrand Bank Ltd (32414/12)

Dessie v Firstrand Bank Ltd (32414/12) [2012] ZAGPJHC 255 (28 November 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

32414/12

Judge

Willis

The High Court upheld an exception to a claim seeking damages from an employer for pain and suffering allegedly caused by an employee’s extramarital affair.

• Exception To Claim
• Pain And Suffering
• Employer Liability
• Common Law Development
• Exception-to-claim
• Employer-liability

Khoza and Others v Body Corporate Ella Court (07/22463)

Khoza and Others v Body Corporate Ella Court (07/22463) [2008] ZAGPHC 429; 2014 (2) SA 112 (GSJ) (13 October 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

07/22463

Judge

SV Notshe

The court held that Rule 49(11) is a procedural rule, not a substantive rule of law. The previous decision in United Reflective Converters (Pty) Ltd v Levine, which held that Rule 49(11) does not suspend orders pending rescission applications, was found to be clearly wrong. The court reasoned that both at common law and under the Uniform Rules, the institution of a rescission application suspends the operation and execution of the order in question. This interpretation is necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice to applicants seeking rescission, aligning with the rationale for suspending or…

Source excerpt

• Rule 49 11 Uniform Rules
• Suspension Of Order
• Rescission Application
• Stare Decisis
• Common Law Development