South Africa Case Law

Mucavele and Another v MEC for Health, Mpumalanga Province (889/2022)

Mucavele and Another v MEC for Health, Mpumalanga Province (889/2022) [2023] ZASCA 129; - (11 October 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

889/2022

Judges

Ponnan, Saldulker, Zondi, Carelse, Siwendu

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in refusing to make the consent settlement agreement an order of court and in amending its terms. The high court's finding of an illegal contingency fee arrangement was not supported by the evidence, and even if such an arrangement existed, it would not invalidate the settlement agreement. The high court had no power to make orders against VZLR Inc when it was not a party to the proceedings. The orders made by the high court were set aside, and the consent order reflecting the parties' agreement was made an order of court. The costs i…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Contingency Fee Arrangement
• Court Practice Directives
• Trust For Minor
• Costs Award

Rozani (Born Nohako) and Another v Qoboka and Another (4443/2020)

Rozani (Born Nohako) and Another v Qoboka and Another (4443/2020) [2022] ZAECMHC 42 (20 October 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

4443/2020

Judge

B R Tokota

The High Court struck the application off the roll for non-compliance with rules and practice directives, including defective pagination and indexing.

• Declaratory Relief
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Executor Appointment
• Unreasonable Delay
• Court Practice Directives
• Executor-appointment

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Tchibamba and Another (5642/2018)

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Tchibamba and Another (5642/2018) [2022] ZAWCHC 169; 2022 (6) SA 571 (WCC) (2 September 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5642/2018

Judge

A.G. Binns-Ward

The court held that Rule 46A(9) does not require a fresh application for reconsideration of the reserve price; rather, the process is an extension of the original Rule 46A application. The reconsideration is inquisitorial, not adversarial, and the court must be able to call for updated information from the Sheriff and interested parties. The registrar should place the Sheriff’s report before a judge, who must afford the parties a reasonable opportunity to supplement the record and make submissions. The court found that the judgment debtors had entered into a private sale agreement for the pro…

Source excerpt

• Rule 46a Sale In Execution
• Reserve Price Reconsideration
• Primary Residence Execution
• Judicial Oversight Of Execution
• Forced Sale Value
• Court Practice Directives