South Africa Case Law

Peri Formwork Scaffolding Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (A67/2020)

Peri Formwork Scaffolding Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (A67/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 165; 84 SATC 91 (23 August 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A67/2020

Judges

DS Kusevitsky, NC Erasmus, ET Steyn

The court held that section 244 of the Tax Administration Act governed the payment deadline for PAYE, but remitted SARS’s 10% penalty under section 217(3).

• Income Tax Act
• Tax Administration Act
• Computation Of Time
• Penalty Remission
• Statutory Interpretation
• Tax-law

Tansnat Durban (Pty) Ltd v Ethekwini Municipality and Others (D4178/2020)

Tansnat Durban (Pty) Ltd v Ethekwini Municipality and Others (D4178/2020) [2020] ZAKZDHC 57 (3 November 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D4178/2020

Judge

Henriques

The High Court held that the tender addendum extended only the closing date, not the 11h00 deadline, so the late submission could not be accepted.

• Tender Process
• Computation Of Time
• Declaratory Relief
• Municipal Procurement
• Estoppel
• Municipal-procurement

KNS Construction (Pty) Ltd v Genesis Partnership (9861/2016)

KNS Construction (Pty) Ltd v Genesis Partnership (9861/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 273 (9 September 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

9861/2016

Judge

FHD Van Oosten

On a proper interpretation of the arbitration agreement, both parties were afforded a right of appeal, including the right to cross-appeal. The agreement expressly incorporated the High Court Rules, which govern the computation of time and appeal procedures. The respondent's cross-appeal was served within the prescribed period as calculated by the rules of court. Even if the cross-appeal were out of time, the respondent would be entitled to seek condonation or extension. In the absence of any application to set aside the cross-appeal as irregular, it remains valid and pending. Consequently, t…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Arbitration Appeal Rights
• Computation Of Time
• Cross Appeal Procedure

Gollel Investments (Pty) Ltd v 48 Nagington Road (Pty) Ltd (2011/16580)

Gollel Investments (Pty) Ltd v 48 Nagington Road (Pty) Ltd (2011/16580) [2011] ZAGPJHC 133 (23 September 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2011/16580

Judge

C G Lamont

The court dismissed a member’s application to appoint a provisional curator ad litem because it was brought before the one-month notice period in section 266 had expired.

• Curator Ad Litem Appointment
• Companies Act 1973 Section 266
• Premature Application
• Computation Of Time
• Transitional Provisions
• Premature-application

Dormell Properties 282 CC v Renasa Insurance Company Ltd and Another (491/09)

Dormell Properties 282 CC v Renasa Insurance Company Ltd and Another (491/09) [2010] ZASCA 137; 2011 (1) SA 70 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 557 (SCA) (1 October 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

491/09

Judges

Mpati, Cloete, Cachalia, Mhlantla, Bertelsmann

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the guarantee expired on 28 February 2008, not at midnight on 27 February 2008, as the contract specified a fixed expiry date and did not require computation of a period. The court found that rectification was permissible, as the parties intended the guarantee to benefit the employer under the building contract, which was Dormell Properties 282 CC after conversion. However, the arbitration award established that Dormell had repudiated the contract and was not entitled to cancel it, removing any legitimate basis to enforce the guarantee. The court conclude…

Source excerpt

• Construction Guarantee
• Rectification Of Contract
• Computation Of Time
• Performance Guarantee
• Arbitration Award Enforceability

Pierre Cronje (Pty) Ltd v Adonis (20466/2009)

Pierre Cronje (Pty) Ltd v Adonis (20466/2009) [2009] ZAWCHC 187; 2010 (4) SA 294 (WCC) (2 December 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20466/2009

Judge

Sholto-Douglas

The court held that, when a settlement agreement is made an order of court, the computation of time periods expressed in days should be interpreted in accordance with the rules of court, specifically as 'court days' as defined in rule 1 of the Uniform Rules of Court, unless the agreement expressly provides otherwise. The court preferred the approach in Ex Parte Venter and Spain NNO over Bosveld Hotel (Pty) Ltd v Nissen and Another, finding it logical and consistent with the rules that the definition of 'court days' is imported into the agreement once it becomes an order of court. As the defen…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Computation Of Time
• Summary Judgment
• Court Days Vs Calendar Days

Standard Bank of South Africa v Kara and Another (527/2008)

Standard Bank of South Africa v Kara and Another (527/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 48 (19 June 2008)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

527/2008

Judge

S. Ebrahim

The court held that the period for entering an appearance to defend under section 27 of the Supreme Court Act must be calculated as calendar days, not court days, in accordance with section 4 of the Interpretation Act. The applicants' reliance on constitutional equality and access to courts did not alter the established legal position, as the legislation already affords more days to litigants outside the jurisdiction, which is not discriminatory. The applicants failed to show that the judgment was erroneously sought or granted, as their calculation was incorrect and the default judgment was p…

Source excerpt

• Computation Of Time
• Default Judgment
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Dies Induciae
• Interpretation Act
• Constitutional Rights

Worthy Homes CC and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited and Others (2743/06, ECJ76)

Worthy Homes CC and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited and Others (2743/06, ECJ76) [2006] ZAECHC 46 (12 September 2006)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

2743/06

Judge

Dambuza

The court found that the intention of the parties, as evidenced by the wording of the agreement and their conduct, was to exclude the day of signature when computing the 30 business day period for fulfilment of the suspensive condition. The deposit and other deadlines were calculated in this manner, and the waiver was communicated within the stipulated period. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, as the funds were earmarked for payment of the purchase price and their release could cause irreparable harm if the applicants succeeded in their claim. The applicants were entitled to…

Source excerpt

• Interim Relief
• Sale Of Immovable Property
• Computation Of Time
• Specific Performance
• Contract Cancellation

Hoban v ABSA Bank Ltd t/a United Bank and Others (275/1997)

Hoban v ABSA Bank Ltd t/a United Bank and Others (275/1997) [1999] ZASCA 12; [1999] 2 All SA 483 (A) (19 March 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

275/1997

Judges

Mahomed, Howie, Olivier, Farlam, Madlanga

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the term 'days' in Rule 46(7)(c) of the Uniform Rules, as it read prior to the 1996 amendment, must be interpreted as 'court days' in accordance with the definition in Rule 1. The Court found that Rule 46 deals with procedural matters connected to litigation, and there is no contextual or legislative basis to depart from the defined meaning. Applying the statutory definition does not result in injustice, incongruity, or absurdity. Therefore, the advertisements for the sale in execution were published within the prescribed period, and the requirements of R…

Source excerpt

• Sale In Execution
• Interpretation Of Rules
• Computation Of Time
• Rule 46 Uniform Rules
• Advertisement Requirements