South Africa Case Law

Yika v National Union of Mineworkers of South Africa (2217/2022)

Yika v National Union of Mineworkers of South Africa (2217/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 459 (20 November 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2217/2022

Judge

Naidoo

The plaintiff failed to establish the existence and terms of a contract of mandate with NUMSA, as required by Uniform Rule 18(6), and did not provide evidence that NUMSA was negligent in handling his dispute. The evidence showed that the plaintiff did not furnish NUMSA with the disciplinary hearing record, which was necessary for assessing the merits and timely referral to the CCMA. The plaintiff's own admissions under cross-examination revealed he pleaded guilty to serious charges and was employed after his dismissal, contradicting his claim for loss of earnings. His calculations for damages…

Source excerpt

• Absolution From The Instance
• Contract Of Mandate
• Negligence
• Loss Of Earnings
• Unfair Dismissal

Rekhuditse Cleaning and Construction Services CC v Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality and Another (7460/2019)

Rekhuditse Cleaning and Construction Services CC v Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality and Another (7460/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 52 (11 June 2020)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

7460/2019

Judge

GC Muller

The court found that the first respondent's unilateral letter of 3 April 2017 did not lawfully terminate or suspend the appointment of the second respondent as adjudicator, as the CIDB Procedure document requires joint action and prescribed procedures for such termination. The applicant's attorney's response did not constitute acquiescence or waiver of rights. Neither party invoked the relevant clauses to appoint a replacement adjudicator or set aside the award. The final adjudication award dated 26 April 2017 was valid and enforceable, as it was delivered before any replacement adjudicator w…

Source excerpt

• Construction Industry Development Board
• Adjudication Award Enforcement
• Contract Of Mandate
• Declaratory Relief
• Res Judicata
• Performance Guarantee

Liberty Group Limited and Others v Mall Space Management CCt/a Mall Space Management (644/18)

Liberty Group Limited and Others v Mall Space Management CCt/a Mall Space Management (644/18) [2019] ZASCA 142; 2020 (1) SA 30 (SCA) (1 October 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

644/18

Judges

Leach, Tshiqi, Swain, Zondi, Mocumie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contract between Liberty Group and Mall Space Management was a mandate terminable at will by the principal under common law, with no obligation to provide notice unless expressly agreed. The court rejected the high court's reliance on Ubuntu and fairness as self-standing bases for imposing a notice period, confirming that such values inform but do not override established contract law principles. The evidence showed Mall Space failed to account properly for rental income and was in arrears, justifying termination. The claim of unlawful competition aga…

Source excerpt

• Contract Of Mandate
• Termination Of Agency
• Ubuntu In Contract Law
• Unlawful Competition
• Final Interdict
• Public Policy

Tshiki and Another v Buffalo City Metro Municipality and Another (CA302/2017)

Tshiki and Another v Buffalo City Metro Municipality and Another (CA302/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 122 (15 November 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA302/2017

Judges

Lowe, Pickering, Nqumse

Appeal over alleged conveyancing contract and standing dismissed; the first appellant did not contract personally and the second appellant lacked locus standi.

• Locus Standi
• Contract Of Mandate
• Deregistration Of Company
• Res Iudicata
• Municipal Procurement
• Damages For Breach Of Contract

Tshiki and Another v Buffalo Metro Municipality and Others (EL766/2014)

Tshiki and Another v Buffalo Metro Municipality and Others (EL766/2014) [2017] ZAECELLC 6 (24 February 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL766/2014

Judge

Ntlama

The High Court held that the second plaintiff, a deregistered company, lacked legal capacity to enforce the claimed mandate or recover debts. The action was dismissed with costs.

• Deregistration Of Company
• Contract Of Mandate
• Conveyancing Liability
• Restitution Of Land Rights
• Legal Personality
• Enforcement Of Contractual Claims

Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd and Others v Hahn & Hahn Incorporated (78757/2014)

Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd and Others v Hahn & Hahn Incorporated (78757/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 475; 2016 BIP 57 (GP) (20 June 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

78757/2014

Judge

De Vos

The court held that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim contain sufficient factual allegations to enable the defendant to plead to the issue of liability for negligence. The bifurcated procedure, seeking a declaration of liability before quantification of damages, is permissible under s 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act and supported by precedent. The validity and infringement of the patent are relevant to quantum, not liability. The High Court retains jurisdiction to determine whether the defendant was negligent in executing its mandate, as the claim is based on breach of contract and fid…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Patent Negligence
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Contract Of Mandate
• Fiduciary Duty Of Attorney

Food and Allied Workers Union v Ngcobo N.O. and Another (CCT 50/13)

Food and Allied Workers Union v Ngcobo N.O. and Another (CCT 50/13) [2013] ZACC 36; 2013 (12) BCLR 1343 (CC); (2013) 34 ILJ 3061 (CC); 2014 (1) SA 32 (CC); [2013] 12 BLLR 1171 (CC) (9 October 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 50/13

Judges

Cameron, Moseneke, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that the union's constitutional right to determine its own administration, as embodied in section 23(4)(a) of the Constitution and the Labour Relations Act, does not confer immunity from liability for breach of mandate. Clause 5.11 of the union's constitution merely sets out an objective and does not create a contractual term allowing withdrawal from a mandate with impunity. The union undertook to represent the employees and was obliged to prosecute their unfair dismissal claims timeously. Its failure to refer the dispute to the Labour Court within the statutory…

Source excerpt

• Contract Of Mandate
• Trade Union Liability
• Section 23 Constitution
• Failure To Prosecute Claim
• Condonation Application
• Union Constitution Interpretation

Mlenzana v Goodrick and Franklin Inc (4423/08)

Mlenzana v Goodrick and Franklin Inc (4423/08) [2011] ZAFSHC 111; 2012 (2) SA 433 (FB) (14 July 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4423/08

Judge

Rampai

The court found that the plaintiff had established all essential elements of her claim: the likelihood of success against the Road Accident Fund, the existence of a contract of mandate, breach of mandate by the defendant, professional negligence, and damages contemplated by the parties. The defendant had sufficient information to lodge the claim but failed to do so due to lack of skill, knowledge, and diligence. The defendant's repeated requests for information already in its possession and failure to take reasonable steps to obtain further information constituted chronic procrastination and…

Source excerpt

• Professional Negligence
• Contract Of Mandate
• Prescription
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Quantum Of Damages

Taljaard v T L Botha Properties (666/06)

Taljaard v T L Botha Properties (666/06) [2008] ZASCA 38; 2008 (6) SA 207 (SCA); [2008] 3 All SA 453 (SCA) (28 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

666/06

Judges

Cameron, Nugent, Cloete, Ponnan, Snyders

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 34A does not invalidate an estate agency mandate or let a client recover fees already paid.

• Estate Agency Affairs Act
• Fidelity Fund Certificate
• Remuneration Entitlement
• Contract Of Mandate
• Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam
• Estate-agency-affairs-act