South Africa Case Law

As Van Dyk Familie Trust (Pty) Ltd and Others v Kemp and Another (025143/2022)

As Van Dyk Familie Trust (Pty) Ltd and Others v Kemp and Another (025143/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 239 (7 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

025143/2022

Judge

Baqwa

The court found that the applicants, as shareholders holding at least 10% of the voting rights, had complied with the statutory requirements of section 61(3) of the Companies Act by delivering a valid written demand for a shareholders meeting. The first respondent, as sole director, was legally obliged to convene such a meeting. The respondents' opposition, including arguments about non-joinder and alleged sale of shares, was rejected as either irrelevant or unsupported by evidence. The court held that notification of other shareholders would occur as part of the order and that their rights w…

Source excerpt

• Companies Act Section 61
• Shareholders Meeting
• Non Joinder
• Locus Standi
• Costs On Punitive Scale

Fatmols Lodges Proprietary Limited v Botha and Others (2023/017800)

Fatmols Lodges Proprietary Limited v Botha and Others (2023/017800) [2024] ZAGPJHC 250 (11 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/017800

Judge

B.C. Wanless

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs on the attorney-and-client scale.

• Leave To Appeal
• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Interim Interdict
• Costs On Punitive Scale
• Leave-to-appeal
• Anti-dissipation-interdict

RNT Management Services CC v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality and Another (3806/2020)

RNT Management Services CC v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality and Another (3806/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 460 (3 November 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3806/2020

Judge

P. J. Loubser

The High Court refused a late Rule 33(4) separation application, finding it would unfairly delay trial and prejudice the plaintiff. Costs were awarded against the defendants.

• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Special Plea Non Compliance With Notice
• Arbitration Clause Enforcement
• Costs On Punitive Scale
• Rule-33-4-separation-of-issues
• Special-pleas

Applicant X v Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service (2022/12)

Applicant X v Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service (2022/12) [2022] ZATC 11; 85 SATC 382 (21 December 2022)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

2022/12

Judge

E Molahlehi

Tax Court dismissed a default judgment application after finding the applicant failed to deliver notices to the correct SARS address and failed to serve SARS.

• Tax Administration Act
• Default Judgment
• Delivery Of Documents
• Costs On Punitive Scale
• Tax-court-rules
• Default-judgment

Maremane Communal Property Association v Minister of Police Station Commander: South African Police and Others (2086/21)

Maremane Communal Property Association v Minister of Police Station Commander: South African Police and Others (2086/21) [2022] ZANCHC 37 (15 July 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2086/21

Judge

M J Ramaepadi

The court held that while the Sheriff is primarily responsible for executing court orders, the SAPS cannot refuse to assist in enforcing such orders where criminal or disorderly conduct persists after service. The SAPS's constitutional mandate obliges them to prevent crime and maintain public order, and this duty exists independently of any court order. The court rejected the respondents' narrow interpretation of the order, finding it insensible and inconsistent with its purpose. The SAPS's refusal to act constituted a failure of their constitutional obligations, justifying the punitive costs…

Source excerpt

• Execution Of Court Orders
• Constitutional Mandate Of Saps
• Costs On Punitive Scale
• Urgent Interdict
• Interpretation Of Court Orders

Somika v Saarthy Proprietary Limited (2020/24081)

Somika v Saarthy Proprietary Limited (2020/24081) [2021] ZAGPJHC 758 (11 August 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/24081

Judge

Molahlehi

The court found that the urgent court order became unenforceable after the cargo was discharged from the Tanzanian port by Saarthy's agent, making compliance impossible and rendering the application for leave to appeal moot. The cancellation of the contract by Somika was not relevant to the question of abandonment or waiver of the judgment, as no formal notice of abandonment was delivered in terms of Rule 41(2). Saarthy failed to establish that Somika had abandoned the judgment or waived its rights. The application for leave to appeal was unnecessary and constituted an abuse of process, justi…

Source excerpt

• Specific Performance
• Abandonment Of Judgment
• Costs On Punitive Scale
• Urgent Application

Hotazel Developments (Pty) Ltd v Mnisi and Others (1024/2020)

Hotazel Developments (Pty) Ltd v Mnisi and Others (1024/2020) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 20 (9 June 2021)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1024/2020

Judge

Roelofse AJ

The court found that the applicant had locus standi, as ownership and control of the property were sufficiently established. The first respondent and others were not occupiers as defined in PIE, based on their own admissions and a previous court order. The previous order interdicts the respondents from occupying or entering the property, and their continued occupation is in clear defiance of that order. The PIE defence was rejected, as the respondents did not qualify for its protection. The Rule 6(15) striking out application was dismissed as the challenged material was relevant and no prejud…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Locus Standi
• Rule 6 15 Striking Out
• Eviction Procedure
• Unlawful Occupation
• Costs On Punitive Scale

H v H (51099/2007)

H v H (51099/2007) [2018] ZAGPPHC 480 (15 March 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

51099/2007

Judge

Shangisa

The High Court appointed a liquidator to divide the former spouses’ joint estate and ordered punitive costs after the respondent blocked implementation of prior divorce orders.

• Division Of Joint Estate
• Appointment Of Liquidator
• Settlement Agreement
• Costs On Punitive Scale
• Division-of-joint-estate
• Appointment-of-liquidator

Lamola v Mahlangu and Another (33183/2011)

Lamola v Mahlangu and Another (33183/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 204 (7 September 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

33183/2011

Judge

Msimeki

The court found that the first respondent had clearly acknowledged liability for the trust account shortfall and costs in correspondence, which interrupted prescription. The applicant was entitled to recover the first respondent's share of the amount paid to the Attorneys Fidelity Fund, calculated as R136,049.67. The court accepted the applicant's calculations as more accurate and rejected the respondent's prescription defence. However, the applicant was not entitled to act on behalf of the Attorneys Fidelity Fund in the absence of cession or authority, and thus prayer 1 of Part B was refused…

Source excerpt

• Joint And Several Liability
• Prescription
• Attorneys Fidelity Fund
• Costs On Punitive Scale