South Africa Case Law

Road Accident Fund v Chipofya (22125/18)

Road Accident Fund v Chipofya (22125/18) [2025] ZAWCHC 235 (2 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

22125/18

Judge

Lekhuleni

The court found that the applicant's rescission application was brought with substantial and unexplained delay, which alone justified dismissal. The applicant was fully aware of the respondent's immigration status and dual identity at the time of settlement and consent to the order. There was no justus error or fraud; the applicant's explanation was false and misleading. The compromise agreement between the parties, made an order of court, extinguished disputed rights and is res judicata. The Road Accident Fund Act, as interpreted by precedent, includes illegal immigrants as eligible claimant…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Illegal Immigrants
• Consent Orders
• Delay In Application

D.R.R v S.D.R and Another (8947/2022P)

D.R.R v S.D.R and Another (8947/2022P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 54 (28 May 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

8947/2022P

Judge

Mossop

Leave to appeal was refused in a child-care dispute because the applicant showed no reasonable prospect of success and no compelling reason to appeal.

• Primary Care Of Children
• Best Interests Of Child
• Leave To Appeal
• Consent Orders
• Sibling Separation
• Leave-to-appeal

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality ; In re: Unlawful Occupiers: 1 Argyl Street and Others v Rohlandt Holdings CC and Others (CCT 228/22)

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality ; In re: Unlawful Occupiers: 1 Argyl Street and Others v Rohlandt Holdings CC and Others (CCT 228/22) [2024] ZACC 10; 2025 (1) SA 1 (CC) (31 May 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 228/22

Judges

Zondo CJ, Chaskalson AJ, Dodson AJ, Kollapen J, Mathopo J, Rogers J, Schippers AJ, Tshiqi J

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court erred in refusing rescission of the consent order. The consent order did not comply with the requirements set out in Eke v Parsons, as it failed to resolve the main dispute, was not constitutionally or statutorily compliant, and did not confer a practical or legitimate advantage. The City had not complied with the Local Government Ordinance and the Constitution regarding municipal acquisition of property, and its attorney lacked authority to consent to the order. Estoppel could not operate to bind the City in the face of statutory non-complian…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Procurement
• Authority Of Attorney
• Consent Orders
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Unlawful Occupation
• Local Government Ordinance

Ruabenheimer obo Dlamini v Road Accident Fund (9380/2021)

Ruabenheimer obo Dlamini v Road Accident Fund (9380/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 149 (19 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

9380/2021

Judge

Cajee

The High Court dismissed an application to compel the Road Accident Fund to sign settlement submissions, holding that the relied-upon practice directive had been replaced.

• Practice Directives
• Settlement Agreements
• Consent Orders
• Curator Ad Litem
• Road Accident Fund Liability
• Road-accident-fund

Mangqobe and Others v Mangqobe N.O (3027/2021)

Mangqobe and Others v Mangqobe N.O (3027/2021) [2024] ZAECMHC 10 (23 January 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3027/2021

Judge

M.S. Jolwana

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a consent order, finding no proper basis under Rule 42 or common law and no proof the order was made in error.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Consent Orders
• Authority Of Legal Representatives
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Locus Standi
• Rescission-of-judgment

Department Of Roads And Public Works: Northern Cape and Others v Samex Consulting (Pty) Ltd (2101/2021)

Department Of Roads And Public Works: Northern Cape and Others v Samex Consulting (Pty) Ltd (2101/2021) [2023] ZANCHC 15 (31 March 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2101/2021

Judge

Phatshoane

The court granted leave to appeal in a dispute over whether a consent order and settlement arrangement were enforceable or too uncertain to bind the parties.

• Enforceability Of Settlement Agreements
• Agreement To Agree
• Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
• Consent Orders
• Agreement-to-agree
• Settlement-agreements

Baloyi N.O. and Others v Pawn Stars CC and Another (CCT 15/21)

Baloyi N.O. and Others v Pawn Stars CC and Another (CCT 15/21) [2022] ZACC 10; 2022 (12) BCLR 1431 (CC) (15 March 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 15/21

Judges

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

The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction was not engaged because the alleged constitutional issue regarding the applicability of rule 46A to property owned by juristic persons or trusts was immaterial to the decision of the lower court. The High Court had accepted the applicability of rule 46A but dismissed the application on other grounds. The applicants failed to demonstrate any basis for variation or rescission of the consent order under rule 42 or the common law, and did not allege any factors that would have prevented the granting of the consent order had rule 46A been applied…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 46a
• Consent Orders
• Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
• Variation And Rescission Of Orders

POPCRU obo Cindi v GPSSBC and Others (JR1512/15)

POPCRU obo Cindi v GPSSBC and Others (JR1512/15) [2021] ZALCJHB 134; [2021] 10 BLLR 1059 (LC) (2 June 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1512/15

Judge

G N Moshoana

The Labour Court held that it is inappropriate to remit an unfair dismissal dispute for rehearing solely due to a missing arbitration record without first reviewing and setting aside the impugned award. The practice manual provides a procedure for missing records, which must be followed rather than invoking rule 11. Consent between parties does not override the requirement to apply the constitutional standard of review. The power to remit a matter arises only after the award is set aside, as otherwise two conflicting administrative decisions may result, violating the functus officio principle…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Remittal Of Dispute
• Functus Officio
• Practice Manual Interpretation
• Missing Record
• Consent Orders

Avnet South Africa (Pty) Limited v Lesira Manufacturing (Pty) Limited and Another (18/38649)

Avnet South Africa (Pty) Limited v Lesira Manufacturing (Pty) Limited and Another (18/38649) [2019] ZAGPJHC 72; 2019 (4) SA 541 (GJ) (4 March 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

18/38649

Judge

S Budlender

The court held that it does not have the power to make a settlement agreement an order of court where the agreement was reached without litigation having commenced between the parties. The reasoning was based on persuasive dicta from the Constitutional Court in Eke v Parsons and the Eastern Cape Full Court in PL v YL, which restrict the court's power to cases where a dispute is properly before the court. The practice of making settlement agreements orders of court is rooted in resolving disputes already before the court, not in transforming private agreements into court orders absent litigati…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Court Jurisdiction
• Consent Orders
• Declaratory Relief

Netshivhuyu v Kia Motors South Africa (Pty) Limited t/a Kia Hatfield (NCT/96644/2017/75(1)(b))

Netshivhuyu v Kia Motors South Africa (Pty) Limited t/a Kia Hatfield (NCT/96644/2017/75(1)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 144 (12 November 2018)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/96644/2017/75(1)(b)

Judges

K Moodaliyar, A Potwana, L Best

The Tribunal declined to confirm a settlement agreement as a consent order because its terms fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and conflicted with statute.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Consent Orders
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Settlement Agreements
• Consent-orders
• Tribunal-jurisdiction