South Africa Case Law

Majories Trading Enterprises CC v Monareng (A34/2022)

Majories Trading Enterprises CC v Monareng (A34/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1813 (16 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A34/2022

Judges

N.N Bam, C Collis

The court exercised its discretion by considering the appellant's limited means, the respondent's risk of unrecoverable costs, and the constitutional imperative to ensure access to justice. The court found that the amount sought by the respondent was excessive and not binding, and that the interests of justice required a reasonable balance. The appellant's financial position was not sufficiently substantiated, but the court took judicial notice of his limited means as a taxi driver. Ultimately, the court ordered security in the amount of R10,000, finding this amount to be reasonable and justi…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Magistrates Court Rules
• Judicial Discretion
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Costs Awards

Zuma v President Of The Republic Of South Africa and Others (0027676/2022)

Zuma v President Of The Republic Of South Africa and Others (0027676/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1026; 2024 (1) SACR 660 (GJ) (12 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

0027676/2022

Judges

Ismail, Baqwa, Modiba

The High Court dismissed Jacob Zuma’s application for leave to appeal, holding that he had not met the statutory threshold and that his security-deposit arguments failed.

• Private Prosecution
• Security Deposit
• Leave To Appeal
• Condonation
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Review Of Summons

Coetzee v T Voetpad CC and Others (521/2012)

Coetzee v T Voetpad CC and Others (521/2012) [2022] ZAWCHC 107 (27 May 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

521/2012

Judge

Wathen-Falken

The court declined to dismiss a delict claim for delay, instead directing the respondents to move the matter to pre-trial within 30 days.

• Abuse Of Process
• Delay In Prosecution
• Locus Standi
• Dismissal Of Action
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Prejudice Due To Delay

Layer3 Telecom (Pty) Ltd v Rustenburg Local Municipality (M346/2020)

Layer3 Telecom (Pty) Ltd v Rustenburg Local Municipality (M346/2020) [2021] ZANWHC 69 (8 October 2021)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M346/2020

Judge

Petersen

The High Court held that the municipality had granted access to requested PAIA records but failed to supply them, so no internal appeal was required.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Internal Appeal Exhaustion
• Final Interdict
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Costs Orders Against State
• Public Records Disclosure

Bodlani v Minister of Police and Another (EL273/2019)

Bodlani v Minister of Police and Another (EL273/2019) [2020] ZAECELLC 3 (4 February 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL273/2019

Judge

Rugunanan

The court held that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of PAIA for lodging an internal appeal. Section 75(1) of PAIA requires that an internal appeal be delivered or sent to the information officer of the public body concerned. The applicant instead directed his appeal to the Provincial Commissioner, which is not the designated functionary under the Act. The court found that this procedural defect was dispositive and, following established precedent, concluded that no valid appeal had been lodged. As a result, the application under section 78 of PAIA was…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Internal Appeal Procedure
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Procedural Compliance

Gabuza v Road Accident Fund (70524/16)

Gabuza v Road Accident Fund (70524/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 634; 2020 (2) SA 228 (GP) (29 August 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

70524/16

Judge

Van der Schyff

The court held that the principle established in Road Accident Fund v Masindi applies to the calculation of prescription periods under section 23 of the Road Accident Fund Act. When the last day for lodging a claim falls on a day when the Post Office or Fund's offices are closed or have limited hours, the period is extended to the next working day. The court found that the legislature was aware of the practical limitations of office hours and intended to protect claimants' rights. Applying the FILO method, the prescription period ended on Saturday, 21 March 2015, but since the Post Office clo…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Periods
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Calculation Of Time
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Statutory Interpretation

Nkuna v Minister of Police and Another (53261/17)

Nkuna v Minister of Police and Another (53261/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 401 (21 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

53261/17

Judge

S.S Madiba

The High Court ordered disclosure of interview results, recommendations, and reasons for non-appointment to a brigadier post under PAIA, and awarded costs to the applicant.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Internal Remedies Exhaustion
• Public Service Appointments
• Promotion-of-access-to-information-act
• Access-to-information

Hlazo v Minister of Police, RSA and Others (4306A/17)

Hlazo v Minister of Police, RSA and Others (4306A/17) [2018] ZAECMHC 24 (20 March 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

4306A/17

Judge

Z M Nhlangulela

The court held that the police could not be compelled to produce accident documents they did not hold, but ordered them to pay the applicant’s costs.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Failure To Provide Information
• Costs Award
• Access-to-information
• Paia

Matthews N.O and Others v Thyne N.O and Others (20714/17)

Matthews N.O and Others v Thyne N.O and Others (20714/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 30 (16 February 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20714/17

Judge

N.M MAVUNDLA

The court found that although the third to sixth plaintiffs are peregrines residing in Australia, the second plaintiff possesses substantial assets and business interests in South Africa, including unencumbered immovable property and significant shareholding in local companies. The plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable for any adverse costs order, and the second plaintiff's assets provide sufficient assurance that costs can be recovered locally. The action brought by the plaintiffs was bona fide, aimed at recovering trust assets allegedly misappropriated by the sixth defendant, and not…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus Vs Incola
• Trust Dispute
• Joint And Several Liability
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Exercise Of Judicial Discretion

Nampak Glass (Pty) Limited v Vodacom (Pty) Limited and Others (2814/2018)

Nampak Glass (Pty) Limited v Vodacom (Pty) Limited and Others (2814/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 481; 2019 (1) SA 257 (GJ) (31 January 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2814/2018

Judge

David Unterhalter

The court held that the common law position, as previously articulated in House of Jewels, is outdated and inconsistent with constitutional imperatives. The right of access to courts requires that procedures exist to enable injured parties to identify wrongdoers. The absence of such procedures in the Rules of Court is a procedural inadequacy that justifies the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction. The court recognised Norwich Pharmacal relief as an appropriate development of South African law, allowing for pre-litigation disclosure orders against innocent third parties who possess in…

Source excerpt

• Norwich Pharmacal Relief
• Disclosure Of Information
• Inherent Jurisdiction
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Procedural Development