South Africa Case Law

Baba and Others v Clicks Group Limited and Another (EC 12/2020)

Baba and Others v Clicks Group Limited and Another (EC 12/2020) [2022] ZAEQC 5 (28 February 2022)

Court

Equality Court

Case number

EC 12/2020

Judge

M J Dolamo

The court found that Clicks Group Limited was not the correct legal entity to be cited, as the advertisement was published by Clicks Retailers, its subsidiary. However, given the public apology and corrective steps taken by the holding company, the court proceeded to consider the merits. The applicants failed to establish that the original TRESemmé advertisement, as published on the Clicks Retailers website, constituted unfair discrimination under sections 7 and 12 of the Equality Act. The images that caused public outcry were cropped and circulated on social media by unknown persons, and the…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Unfair Discrimination
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Corporate Liability
• Objective Test For Discrimination

Lin and Another v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and Another (2014/22434)

Lin and Another v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and Another (2014/22434) [2015] ZAGPJHC 245; [2016] 1 All SA 543 (GJ) (14 October 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2014/22434

Judge

Spilg

The court imposed fines for contempt after Cathay Pacific and its airport manager ignored orders to return three minor children to South Africa.

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Section 165 Constitution
• Habeas Corpus
• Costs Order
• Corporate Liability

Technological Pump Developments CC t/a TPD Water Services v Irving 630 CC t/a B & M Pumps and Another (27466/06)

Technological Pump Developments CC t/a TPD Water Services v Irving 630 CC t/a B & M Pumps and Another (27466/06) [2006] ZAGPHC 103; 2007 (3) SA 370 (T) (24 November 2006)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

27466/06

Judge

Van Rooyen

High Court summary judgment case on Rule 32 verifying affidavits, where the court upheld the affidavit and granted judgment only for the reduced, undisputed amount.

• Summary Judgment
• Verifying Affidavit
• Authority To Depose
• Corporate Liability
• Summary-judgment
• Verifying-affidavit

S v Nel (40/96)

S v Nel (40/96) [1996] ZASCA 91 (16 September 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

40/96

Judges

P.M. Nienaber, E.M. Grosskopf, Schutz

The court upheld a fraud conviction after finding the appellant sold a bakery business without disclosing key facts about ownership, insolvency, and the curator’s interest.

• Fraud
• Ownership Transfer
• Misrepresentation
• Insolvency
• Corporate Liability
• Criminal-appeal

Anderson Shipping (Pty) Ltd v Guardian National Insurance Company Ltd; In re: McCarthy Rental Ltd.; Anderson Shipping (Pty) Ltd.; Guardian National Insurance Company Ltd. (244/86)

Anderson Shipping (Pty) Ltd v Guardian National Insurance Company Ltd; In re: McCarthy Rental Ltd.; Anderson Shipping (Pty) Ltd.; Guardian National Insurance Company Ltd. (244/86) [1987] ZASCA 57; [1987] 2 All SA 307 (A) (27 May 1987)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

244/86

Judges

Corbett, Botha, Smalberger, Nicholas, Kumleben

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Guardian National Insurance Company failed to establish that Anderson Shipping had actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts relied upon for the defence of non-disclosure. The evidence showed that Anderson’s manager responsible for hiring drivers did not know of the prior conviction or endorsement, and there was no duty to conduct further investigations absent suspicion. The knowledge of subordinates was not automatically imputed to the company, and the insurer did not prove that Anderson ought to have known the facts through reasonable busin…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Non Disclosure
• Materiality Of Risk
• Imputed Knowledge
• Corporate Liability