South Africa Case Law

BO Woodburn Family Trust v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others (LCC81/2024)

BO Woodburn Family Trust v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others (LCC81/2024) [2024] ZALCC 42 (13 December 2024)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC81/2024

Judge

L Flatela

Urgent interim interdict granted to stop any steps to degazette a land claim pending final determination of related restitution proceedings.

• Interim Interdict
• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Degazetting Of Land Claim
• Urgent Application
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Court
• Interim-interdict

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Maloka (19942-2021)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Maloka (19942-2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 360 (12 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19942/2021

Judge

Du Plessis

The court found that Standard Bank established its entitlement to security for costs. Mr Maloka's litigation history demonstrated a pattern of vexatious and unsustainable claims, disregard for procedural rules, and repeated institution of proceedings based on the same factual matrix despite prior adverse rulings and explicit court orders staying further litigation. The court held that the main application was unsustainable on a preponderance of probabilities, and that Mr Maloka's conduct amounted to an abuse of process. The procedural requirements of Rule 47 were satisfied, and the amount of…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Rule 47 Procedure
• Vexatious Litigation
• Abuse Of Process
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Court

Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Human Settlements, Free State Province v Cem Brink CC and Others (4973/2013)

Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Human Settlements, Free State Province v Cem Brink CC and Others (4973/2013) [2023] ZAFSHC 370 (2 October 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4973/2013

Judge

Berry, AJ

The court found that while there was a significant delay in prosecuting the action, the applicant provided detailed explanations for the periods of delay and did not abandon the claim. The matter involves substantial public funds and interest, and the respondent did not substantiate its claims of prejudice with evidence. The court held that the right of access to courts is constitutionally protected and should only be limited in exceptional circumstances where there is clear abuse of process. The delay did not amount to a gross abuse of procedure, and it would not be in the interests of justi…

Source excerpt

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Amendment Of Particulars Of Claim
• Abuse Of Process
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Court

Municipal Employees' Pension Fund and Others v Financial Sector Conduct Authority and Others (007529/22)

Municipal Employees' Pension Fund and Others v Financial Sector Conduct Authority and Others (007529/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1201 (29 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

007529/22

Judge

Kooverjie

The court held that the obligation to produce the record under Rule 53(1)(b) arises automatically upon the institution of a review application, regardless of whether the decision is ultimately found to be reviewable under PAJA or legality review. The merits of whether the decision constitutes administrative action are not relevant at the interlocutory stage; such determination must be made by the court hearing the main review application with the full facts before it. Privileged or confidential information must be disclosed if it is relevant to the decision under review, and any concerns rega…

Source excerpt

• Rule 53 Record Production
• Privileged Information Disclosure
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Search And Seizure Order
• Jurisdictional Dispute
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Court

Graceful Blessing (Pty) Ltd v Zander Burger Properties (Pty) Ltd (A32/2023)

Graceful Blessing (Pty) Ltd v Zander Burger Properties (Pty) Ltd (A32/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 367; 2024 (2) SA 441 (FB) (27 September 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A32/2023

Judges

MBHELE, VAN ZYL, CRONJÉ

The court held that the respondent established the requirements for mandament van spolie, having been in peaceful and undisturbed possession and unlawfully dispossessed when the appellant changed the locks without a court order. Although the lease agreement contained clause 18 purporting to allow the owner to take any action for immediate ejectment, such a provision does not pass constitutional muster and cannot oust the right of access to court. The court found that freedom of contract is subject to constitutional values, and extra-curial repossession is contrary to public policy. The appell…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Lease Cancellation
• Contractual Interpretation
• Pacta Sunt Servanda
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Court
• Extra Curial Ejectment

S and Another v M (26805/2022)

S and Another v M (26805/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 794 (11 October 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26805/2022

Judge

A Makume

The High Court dismissed an urgent application to bar a father from laying complaints or charges, finding no urgency and no prima facie right for interim relief.

• Vexatious Litigation
• Interdictory Relief
• Access To Minor Child
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Court
• Urgent-interdict
• Vexatious-litigation

Capitec Bank Holdings Limited v Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Others (10530/2020)

Capitec Bank Holdings Limited v Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Others (10530/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 65; 2021 (6) SA 121 (WCC) (16 April 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10530/2020

Judge

E D Wille

The High Court enforced a clear agreement not to sue, ordered the respondents to withdraw their action, and dismissed counter-applications.

• Specific Performance
• Agreement Not To Sue
• Arbitration Clause
• Public Policy
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Court
• Agreement-not-to-sue

Mpungose and Others v Shabalala and Others (2773/2015)

Mpungose and Others v Shabalala and Others (2773/2015) [2018] ZAKZPHC 35 (24 August 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

2773/2015

Judge

Olsen

The court found that the present application for rescission is not materially different from the previous application, which was dismissed and stands unchallenged. The applicants' attempt to distinguish the grounds for rescission was rejected. However, the court recognized that the circumstances on the ground have changed, with both parties occupying portions of the land and a real dispute over rights of access. The court held that, in the interests of justice and constitutional rights of access to court, execution of the ejectment order should be suspended pending determination of the applic…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Spoliation
• Eviction
• Unlawful Occupation
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Court

Mthenjwa v Steyn and Another (9028/17)

Mthenjwa v Steyn and Another (9028/17) [2017] ZAWCHC 161 (30 November 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9028/17

Judge

L P Tlaletsi

The court dismissed an application to sue a judge, holding that prior consent from the Head of Court under section 47(1) was required and had not been sought.

• Superior Courts Act Section 47
• Leave To Sue Judge
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Court
• Qualified Privilege Of Judges
• Superior-courts-act-section-47
• Leave-to-sue-judge

Nongoma Commonage Community and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal and Others (LCC52/2016)

Nongoma Commonage Community and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, KwaZulu-Natal and Others (LCC52/2016) [2017] ZALCC 2 (28 March 2017)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC52/2016

Judge

Ncube AJ

The court found that the Applicants' restitution claim had been subject to an unreasonable and unlawful delay by the First Respondent, who failed to process and finalise the claim despite statutory and constitutional obligations. The Respondents' arguments regarding consolidation and the identity of the claimant were rejected based on documentary evidence and prior assurances. The Applicants are entitled to access all documents relating to their claim, the appointment of a valuer, and a report specifying steps and timeframes for finalisation. The Respondents' conduct warranted a costs order,…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Administrative Delay
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Court
• State Obligations
• Costs Orders