South Africa Case Law

AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd v Rustenburg Local Municipality (CIV APP FB 07/2023)

AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd v Rustenburg Local Municipality (CIV APP FB 07/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 72; 2024 (6) SA 188 (NWM) (12 March 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CIV APP FB 07/2023

Judges

Hendricks JP, Petersen J, Dibetso-Bodibe AJ

The court held that the Engineering Profession Act 46 of 2000 regulates the registration of individual engineers, not companies or firms. The Act's provisions, definitions, and registration process are directed at natural persons who possess the requisite qualifications and can be assessed for competency. The definition of 'registered person' and the categories of registration under section 18 are limited to individuals. The contextual approach to statutory interpretation, as endorsed in Endumeni, requires that the general definition of 'person' in the Interpretation Act be ousted where the l…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Engineering Profession Act
• Special Plea
• Company Registration

Taitz Cellular (Pty) Ltd t-a Blue Cellular and Another v Chadez Enterprises (Pty) Limited and Others (29643/2021)

Taitz Cellular (Pty) Ltd t-a Blue Cellular and Another v Chadez Enterprises (Pty) Limited and Others (29643/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 517 (3 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

29643/2021

Judge

Nochumsohn

The High Court dismissed an exception to amended particulars of claim, holding that the defendants relied on speculation about company registration dates rather than pleaded facts.

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Cause Of Action
• Pleading Requirements
• Company Registration
• Judicial Notice
• Exception-to-particulars-of-claim

Van Zyl v Joubert (54016/2013)

Van Zyl v Joubert (54016/2013) [2022] ZAGPPHC 435 (10 June 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

54016/2013

Judge

PM Mabuse

The court dismissed a prescription defence and ordered specific performance of an oral agreement involving a farm, a company, and 25% shareholding.

• Specific Performance
• Oral Contract
• Prescription Act
• Company Registration
• Transfer Of Property
• Shareholding Dispute

Maxi Drivers Association and Others v Registrar of Public Transport and Others (18353/2011)

Maxi Drivers Association and Others v Registrar of Public Transport and Others (18353/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 137 (23 August 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

18353/2011

Judge

Willis

The court found that the applicants have used the name Maxi Drivers Association since at least 1997, while the 8th respondent registered as a Section 21 Company in 2003 and conducts a similar business under the same name. This situation constitutes passing off, which is unfair to both the public and the applicants. In the absence of further evidence, the applicants are entitled to an interim interdict restraining the respondents from using the name Maxi Drivers Association. The matter is postponed sine die, and the respondents may seek reconsideration upon providing further evidence.

Source excerpt

• Passing Off
• Interdict
• Company Registration
• Section 21 Company