South Africa Case Law

Waterford Estate Homeowners Association Npc v Riverside Lodge Body Corporate and Others (24576-2020)

Waterford Estate Homeowners Association Npc v Riverside Lodge Body Corporate and Others (24576-2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 192 (27 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

24576/2020

Judge

A Makume

Leave to appeal was granted on the review issues under the CSOS Act, but refused on the constitutional challenge to section 39(1)(c) and (e) and on costs.

• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Judicial Review
• Constitutionality Of Statute
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Order
• Leave-to-appeal

Malema and Another v Afriforum NPC and Another (89196/2016)

Malema and Another v Afriforum NPC and Another (89196/2016) [2023] ZAGPPHC 11 (17 January 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

89196/2016

Judge

P M Mabuse

The court held that the application for leave to appeal must fail for several reasons. First, the order sought to be appealed was granted by default, and in terms of established authority, such orders are not ordinarily appealable but rather subject to rescission. The applicants had already pursued rescission, which was dismissed, finalising the proceedings. Second, the application for condonation for the late filing of leave to appeal was defective, lacking a complete and reasonable explanation for the delay, as required by law. The affidavit supporting condonation did not cover the entire p…

Source excerpt

• Default Judgment
• Leave To Appeal
• Condonation
• Freedom Of Expression
• Constitutionality Of Statute
• Incitement

South African Municipal Workers Union National Provident Fund v Dihlabeng Local Municipality and Another (3463/2013)

South African Municipal Workers Union National Provident Fund v Dihlabeng Local Municipality and Another (3463/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 160 (11 September 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3463/2013

Judge

L J Lekale

The court found that good cause existed for condonation of the late delivery of the respondent's answering papers, and accordingly condoned the delay. This removed the need for the respondent to seek leave to file third party notices. The court further held that the issues raised in the main application, including the constitutionality of section 13A(1) of the Pension Funds Act and Rule 3.2.1 of the applicant's rules, as well as the factual dispute regarding reinstatement versus re-employment of employees, were also raised in the third party proceedings. The interpretation of the relevant set…

Source excerpt

• Third Party Proceedings
• Condonation
• Pension Fund Contributions
• Constitutionality Of Statute

Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and Another v Hoffmann International (Pty) Ltd and Others (2005/10365)

Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and Another v Hoffmann International (Pty) Ltd and Others (2005/10365) [2010] ZAGPJHC 120 (25 November 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2005/10365

Judge

N.P. Willis

The court found that paragraphs 1 to 3 of the plaintiffs' replication are not self-contained and must be read as a whole. The exception would not avoid the leading of unnecessary evidence at trial and, if successful, could result in more evidence being led. The defendants did not admit the plaintiffs' allegations but rather contended that the replication did not disclose a reply. Furthermore, the exception was taken late, without application for condonation, and did not comply with Rule 23(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The court held that the exception must fail and dismissed it with cost…

Source excerpt

• Copyright Infringement
• Exception To Pleading
• Constitutionality Of Statute
• Section 15 3a Copyright Act
• Section 25 Constitution

Van Vuuren and Others v Minister of Correctional Services (46062/08)

Van Vuuren and Others v Minister of Correctional Services (46062/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 315 (17 August 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

46062/08

Judge

Bertelsmann

The High Court held that section 136 of the Correctional Services Act applies to the applicants and dismissed the parole challenge for most applicants.

• Parole Eligibility
• Constitutionality Of Statute
• Life Imprisonment
• Correctional Services Act
• Retrospective Application
• Parole-eligibility