South Africa Case Law

Sethibelo v General Public Service Sector Bargaining Council and Others (JR 237/21)

Sethibelo v General Public Service Sector Bargaining Council and Others (JR 237/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 250 (26 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 237/21

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The court found that the applicant's dismissal was procedurally unfair due to significant defects in the disciplinary process. The employer failed to formally revoke the applicant's approved leave, and the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing proceeded on the incorrect assumption that no leave had been granted. The evidence showed that the applicant was on authorised leave and that there was an agreement to postpone the hearing, which was not disputed. The Arbitrator failed to consider these facts and thus erred in finding the dismissal procedurally fair. However, the court upheld the Arbi…

Source excerpt

• Procedural Fairness
• Protected Disclosure Act
• Disciplinary Hearing
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal
• Contractual Rights
• Audi Alteram Partem

Mohamed Holdings (Pty) Ltd v B EMS Close Corporation and Others (2025/064608)

Mohamed Holdings (Pty) Ltd v B EMS Close Corporation and Others (2025/064608) [2025] ZAGPJHC 630 (24 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/064608

Judge

FMM Reid

The High Court struck an urgent application off the roll after finding no adequate factual basis for urgency. Costs were awarded against the applicant.

• Interim Interdict
• Urgency
• Specific Performance
• Contractual Rights
• Urgent-applications
• Interim-interdict

Taljaard v Stanger N.O and Others (051740/2025)

Taljaard v Stanger N.O and Others (051740/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 434 (5 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

051740/2025

Judge

Nyathi

The High Court granted an urgent interim interdict preventing removal of 289 rare cycads pending further proceedings, and ordered disclosure of the third respondent’s contact details.

• Interim Interdict
• Urgent Application
• Contractual Rights
• Environmental Permits
• Sale Of Property
• Personal Information Protection

South African Forestry Company SOC Limited v Boruchowitz N.O and Another (033595/2022)

South African Forestry Company SOC Limited v Boruchowitz N.O and Another (033595/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 314 (24 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

033595/2022

Judge

JM Berger

The court found that Hakhensa Consulting CC demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the main review application, both as cessionary under the deed of cession and as a contractual beneficiary under the addendum to the memorandum of understanding. Clause 18.2 of the services agreement did not clearly prohibit cession of the right to receive payment, and even if it did, any refusal of consent by SAFCOL would have been unreasonable given the circumstances. The court held that Hakhensa's rights would be adversely affected if the relief sought by SAFCOL in the review were g…

Source excerpt

• Intervention Application
• Cession
• Contractual Rights
• Pactum De Non Cedendo
• Arbitration Award

Ideal Prepaid (Pty) Ltd v Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality and Another (514/2025)

Ideal Prepaid (Pty) Ltd v Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality and Another (514/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 65 (20 March 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

514/2025

Judge

A Reddy

The High Court granted urgent interim relief protecting prepaid meters, found urgency established, and held the applicant had a prima facie contractual right pending final proceedings.

• Interim Interdict
• Contractual Rights
• Municipal Tender Process
• Joinder Of Parties
• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Meter Management Agreements

Abrahams N.O and Others v Geldenhuys N.O and Others (Reasons) (2025/001463)

Abrahams N.O and Others v Geldenhuys N.O and Others (Reasons) (2025/001463) [2025] ZAWCHC 78; [2025] 2 All SA 388 (WCC) (5 March 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2025/001463

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The High Court held that club members seeking access to squash facilities were asserting contractual rights, not possessory rights, so mandament van spolie relief was unavailable.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Voluntary Association
• Contractual Rights
• Specific Performance
• Possession Vs Access
• Mandament-van-spolie

Freshminds Marketing and Communications CC v Vodacom Group Limited (2024/149484)

Freshminds Marketing and Communications CC v Vodacom Group Limited (2024/149484) [2025] ZAGPPHC 91 (3 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024/149484

Judge

Kumalo

Urgent interdict application struck off the roll for lack of urgency after the court found the delay was self-created and unexplained.

• Urgent Interdict
• Contractual Rights
• Self Created Urgency
• Prima Facie Right
• Alternative Remedies
• Urgent-interdict

Oreways Mining SA Pty Ltd v Magoma Attorneys and Another (2625/2024)

Oreways Mining SA Pty Ltd v Magoma Attorneys and Another (2625/2024) [2024] ZANCHC 112 (23 October 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2625/2024

Judge

MC Mamosebo

The High Court granted urgent interim relief and a rule nisi restraining dissipation of R7 million held in trust, pending Part B final relief.

• Interim Interdict
• Trust Account Funds
• Urgent Application
• Contractual Rights
• Jurisdiction Challenge
• Interim-interdict

Van Kerken v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Another (3771/2024)

Van Kerken v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Another (3771/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 98 (5 September 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

3771/2024

Judge

T.V. Norman

The court found that the applicant and Eskom have a commercial relationship governed by contract, and the supply of electricity is a personal right arising from that contract, not an incident of possession of the property. The applicant failed to establish urgency, as the urgency was self-created by his own inaction after being forewarned of disconnection for non-payment. The mandament van spolie does not protect purely contractual rights, and the deprivation of electricity supply in these circumstances does not constitute spoliation. The application was accordingly dismissed, and costs were…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Urgent Interdict
• Electricity Supply Disconnection
• Specific Performance
• Contractual Rights
• Punitive Costs

Movienet Networks (Pty) Ltd and Another v Motus Ford Culemborg and Others (13781/2024)

Movienet Networks (Pty) Ltd and Another v Motus Ford Culemborg and Others (13781/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 231 (2 September 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13781/2024

Judge

A Bhoopchand

The High Court dismissed an application for release of a vehicle after a business email compromise dispute, finding the requested interdict was not competent.

• Business Email Compromise
• Interim Interdict
• Ownership Of Movable Property
• Contractual Rights
• Cybercrime Liability
• Specific Performance