South Africa Case Law

R.D.D v V.D.D (2024/067120; A2024/005340)

R.D.D v V.D.D (2024/067120; A2024/005340) [2025] ZAGPJHC 428 (6 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/067120; A2024/005340

Judges

S D J Wilson, Mabesela

The High Court condoned the applicant's non-compliance with Rule 35, finding that the substance of section 81 of the Magistrates' Court Act had been observed and that the court retained inherent power to regulate its own process in the interests of justice. On the merits, the court held that the clerk and Magistrate acted reasonably in refusing to allow the claimed disbursements, as there was no evidence of actual payment and the invoices appeared to be for the applicant's own time, which is not recoverable by a litigant in person. The appeal and review were accordingly dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Self Represented Litigant Costs

Department of Correctional Services v Kutu and Others (JA27/2024)

Department of Correctional Services v Kutu and Others (JA27/2024) [2025] ZALAC 17; [2025] 6 BLLR 551 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 1331 (LAC) (14 March 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA27/2024

Judges

Savage AJP, Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Sutherland AJA

The Labour Appeal Court upheld dismissal for insubordination after a correctional officer refused to escort an inmate to hospital, and dismissed a cross-appeal.

• Insubordination
• Unfair Dismissal
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Review Test
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Dismissal

Sibiya v Old Mutual Life Assurance (SA) Ltd and Others (Ex Tempore) (025033/2025), Ex parte

Sibiya v Old Mutual Life Assurance (SA) Ltd and Others (Ex Tempore) (025033/2025), Ex parte [2025] ZAGPPHC 259 (13 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

025033/2025

Judge

Yende

The High Court struck an ex parte urgent application from the roll for lack of urgency, finding the claimed urgency was self-created and no substantial redress test was met.

• Rule 6 12 Urgency
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Striking Off For Lack Of Urgency
• Urgency
• Rule-6-12
• Civil-procedure

Matthys v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (Ex tempore) (2025-019481)

Matthys v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (Ex tempore) (2025-019481) [2025] ZAGPPHC 269 (26 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-019481

Judge

Yende

The court found that the applicant had met the threshold for urgency under Rule 6(12) due to the immediate risk to health and safety posed by the instruction to occupy a building that is severely damaged and non-compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The respondent failed to provide credible evidence that the building was safe or habitable. The applicant's constitutional rights to dignity, life, privacy, and a healthy working environment were at risk of being infringed. The court condoned the procedural non-compliance in the interest of justice and granted interim relief to pr…

Source excerpt

• Rule 6 12 Urgency
• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Interdict
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Constitutional Right To Dignity
• Interim Relief

Miyambu and Others v Steve Tshwete Local Municipality and Another (2025/002049)

Miyambu and Others v Steve Tshwete Local Municipality and Another (2025/002049) [2025] ZALCJHB 40 (5 February 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/002049

Judge

Seedat

The Labour Court held that a licensing-function transfer triggered section 197, preserving the applicants’ employment and entitling them to unpaid salaries.

• Section 197 Transfer
• Remuneration Claim
• Urgent Application
• Basic Conditions Of Employment
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Section-197-transfer

Gradco South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mahlopi Metals Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (6092/24)

Gradco South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mahlopi Metals Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (6092/24) [2025] ZANWHC 23 (4 February 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

6092/24

Judge

A Reddy

The court found that the applicant had established urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b), given the unlawful retention of the excavator and the risk of irreparable harm. The applicant proved ownership and entitlement to possession under the rei vindicatio, as the respondent failed to establish any right to retain the machine. The respondent's denial of the contract and ownership was contradicted by its own conduct, including intermittent payments and requests for payment extensions. No material dispute of fact existed that would preclude relief on the papers. The respondent's conduct warranted…

Source excerpt

• Rei Vindicatio
• Urgent Interdict
• Lease Agreement
• Ownership Dispute
• Condonation Of Non Compliance

Raubex Building (Pty) Ltd v HOD: Dept of Roads and Public Works, NC and Another (1508/2024)

Raubex Building (Pty) Ltd v HOD: Dept of Roads and Public Works, NC and Another (1508/2024) [2024] ZANCHC 66 (3 July 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1508/2024

Judge

Mamosebo

Urgent application to compel reasons and tender records was struck off the roll for lack of urgency and exceptional circumstances, with punitive costs.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Urgency
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Public Procurement
• Access To Information
• Administrative-law

THC Health Centre Pty Ltd t/a THC Pharmacy v South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and Others (2023/053299)

THC Health Centre Pty Ltd t/a THC Pharmacy v South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and Others (2023/053299) [2024] ZAGPJHC 477 (20 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/053299

Judge

VM Movshovich

The High Court condoned non-compliance with the Rules, upheld urgency, and ordered restoration of possession of the relevant articles subject to inspection and seizure powers.

• Urgent Interdict
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Restoration Of Possession
• Seizure Powers
• Costs Order
• Urgent-application

Kullmann (8657-2023), Ex parte

Kullmann (8657-2023), Ex parte [2024] ZAGPJHC 426 (2 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

8657/2023

Judge

Meiring

The applicant failed to comply strictly with section 4 of the Insolvency Act, but subsequently remedied the non-compliance by publishing the required notices and dispatching them to creditors and SARS. The court condoned the late compliance in the interests of justice. However, the applicant's founding affidavit was lacking in detail and failed to provide full and frank disclosure regarding his financial affairs, assets, and liabilities. The asset valuations provided were inadequate and not properly substantiated. The applicant did not demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that his estate…

Source excerpt

• Voluntary Surrender
• Sequestration
• Creditor Intervention
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Advantage To Creditors

Raubex Construction (Pty) Ltd v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Soc) and Another (117558-2023)

Raubex Construction (Pty) Ltd v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Soc) and Another (117558-2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 194 (27 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

117558/2023

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court struck an application off the urgent roll for lack of urgency, finding the applicant failed to properly plead urgency under Rule 6(12)(b).

• Rule 53 Record
• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Review Of Tender Award
• Urgency-in-motion-proceedings
• Rule-53-record