South Africa Case Law

Cawood N.O v Murray N.O and Others (A127/19)

Cawood N.O v Murray N.O and Others (A127/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 859; 2024 (6) SA 222 (GP) (12 December 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A127/19

Judges

Khumalo, Manoim, Ncongwane

The court held that while there is no direct precedent for forfeiture of business rescue practitioners' fees, the inherent power of the court to sanction practitioners for misconduct is established in South African law. The BRPs failed to fulfil their statutory duties under the Companies Act, acted to the detriment of creditors and shareholders, and their conduct warranted censure. However, the court found insufficient evidence to justify setting aside the resolutions placing the companies under business rescue. The order of the court a quo denying the BRPs their fees was set aside, as was th…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Practitioner Fees
• Conversion To Liquidation
• Court Inherent Powers
• Remuneration Forfeiture

Ross v Novikova (16015/20)

Ross v Novikova (16015/20) [2020] ZAWCHC 178 (11 December 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16015/20

Judge

Papier

In a default judgment medical-negligence claim, the High Court ordered personal service of the papers on the defendant and postponed the matter for compliance.

• Default Judgment
• Personal Service
• Medical Negligence
• Court Inherent Powers
• Default-judgment
• Personal-service

M.K v Transnet Ltd t/a Portnet (A105/2004)

M.K v Transnet Ltd t/a Portnet (A105/2004) [2018] ZAKZDHC 39; [2018] 4 All SA 251 (KZD) (20 August 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A105/2004

Judge

Mbatha

The court found that the applicant's claim for loss of support arising from the death of her son, an officer on the MSC Viviana, constitutes a maritime claim under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter and may admit hearsay evidence in admiralty proceedings. The applicant demonstrated, through medical evidence, her inability to travel due to age, ill health, and lack of financial means. The absence of specific rules for video link evidence in civil proceedings does not preclude the court from exercising its inherent powers to regulate pr…

Source excerpt

• Admiralty Jurisdiction
• Video Link Evidence
• Loss Of Support
• Hearsay Evidence
• Court Inherent Powers

Robor Tube (Pty) Ltd v MEIBC and Others (JR1758/13)

Robor Tube (Pty) Ltd v MEIBC and Others (JR1758/13) [2018] ZALCJHB 229; (2018) 39 ILJ 2332 (LC) (21 June 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1758/13

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court held that a withdrawn review application can be reinstated and granted leave to re-enroll the review of an arbitration award.

• Withdrawal Of Proceedings
• Reinstatement Of Review
• Arbitration Award
• Prescription
• Court Inherent Powers
• Withdrawal-of-proceedings

Qwelane v Minister of Justice And Constitutional development and Another (36314/13)

Qwelane v Minister of Justice And Constitutional development and Another (36314/13) [2014] ZAGPJHC 334; 2015 (2) SA 493 (GJ) (21 November 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

36314/13

Judge

FHD Van Oosten

The High Court is empowered under section 173 of the Constitution to regulate its own process and, in the absence of a specific procedural rule, may order consolidation of equality court and constitutional challenge proceedings for hearing before a single judge in dual capacity. Consolidation is justified by considerations of convenience, efficiency, and fairness, and does not create a 'super court' or compromise the distinct statutory characteristics of each proceeding. The rule of practice established by the Constitutional Court requires that all issues be resolved before the constitutional…

Source excerpt

• Consolidation Of Proceedings
• Equality Court Jurisdiction
• Constitutional Challenge
• Freedom Of Expression
• Hate Speech
• Court Inherent Powers