Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Macwecwe v Road Accident Fund (A250/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1345 (11 December 2024)
The High Court upheld an appeal against a default judgment dismissal, holding that prescription could not be raised mero motu and the alternative claims required factual determination.
Gumede and Another v Small Enterprise Development Agency and Another (5670/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1228 (22 November 2024)
The High Court held that the respondents complied with the Public Protector’s remedial action and dismissed the applicants’ claim for constitutional damages and costs.
Roads Agency Limpopo SOC Ltd v Matla Consultants CC and Another (5103/2018) [2022] ZALMPPHC 66 (29 November 2022)
High Court dismissed an application to set aside an arbitration agreement in a road-construction dispute, and also dismissed the contractor’s counter-application.
O'Brien v Heaven Sent Gold South Africa (PTY) Ltd (previously known as Village Main Reef Group (PTY) Ltd) (JS 501/2021) [2022] ZALCJHB 308 (17 October 2022)
The court held that the applicant's claim is delictual in nature and arises from an alleged breach of the settlement agreement, not directly from a contract of employment. Section 77(3) of the BCEA does not confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court to adjudicate delictual claims, even if they incidentally concern a contract of employment. The determination of delictual liability requires consideration of elements such as harm, wrongful conduct, causation, and fault, which are not matters concerning a contract of employment. Accordingly, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the applicant'…
Source excerpt
Rudnat Projects v Nketoane Local Municipality and Others (2870/2013) [2021] ZAFSHC 338 (22 October 2021)
The court found a tacit agreement for professional services, rejected prescription objections to alternative claims, and awarded Rudnat Projects damages and costs against Nketoane.
Bidfood (Pty) Ltd v Galagos Country Estate & Conference Centre (Pty) Ltd t/a Galagos Country Estate (31283/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 720 (10 December 2020)
The High Court upheld an exception to amended particulars of claim, finding them vague and embarrassing, non-compliant with Rule 18(4), and lacking averments for liability claims.
Ngubeni v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd (37790/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 107 (18 March 2019)
The court found that the applicant had sufficiently established that the requested documents are reasonably required for the exercise of his right to claim damages arising from injuries sustained in an incident linked to the respondent's fibre installation works. The respondent's procedural objections regarding the fax number, capacity, and fee payment were either immaterial or adequately addressed, as the request did reach the respondent and the covering letter clarified the applicant's capacity. The respondent failed to respond within the statutory period, resulting in a deemed refusal unde…
Source excerpt
Visser NO and Others v Van Niekerk and Others (5937/16) [2018] ZAFSHC 200 (9 November 2018)
The court dismissed a special plea challenging jurisdiction, holding that the Free State High Court had jurisdiction over the parties and dispute.
Mtati v Whitesides Attorneys (CA78/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 32 (8 May 2018)
The court held that the appellant's claim arose from the wrongful disbursement of his funds by the respondent's employee on 28 October 2010, which constituted the harm. The appellant had actual knowledge of the wrongful payment and its consequences by the end of 2010, as evidenced by discussions with Ms Amsterdam and his subsequent actions to secure transfer. Even if the appellant only became aware of the impossibility of transfer in May 2012, prescription commenced to run at the latest on 18 May 2012. The court distinguished this case from Kelbrick v Nelson Attorneys, noting that the harm he…
Source excerpt
Brookstein v Brookstein (20808/2014) [2016] ZASCA 40; 2016 (5) SA 210 (SCA) (24 March 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent’s delictual claim for damages, based on fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation and non-disclosure of the true value of the accrual, was not a matrimonial cause or a matter incidental to such cause as contemplated in s 2 of the Arbitration Act. The marriage and all proprietary consequences had been disposed of by the court order incorporating the settlement agreement, rendering the matrimonial cause res judicata. The delictual claim arose independently and was susceptible to arbitration. Regarding the date for determining the value of acc…
Source excerpt
Explore more
