South Africa Case Law

Financial Sector Conduct Authority v Financial Services Tribunal and Others (009838/2023)

Financial Sector Conduct Authority v Financial Services Tribunal and Others (009838/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 675 (9 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

009838/2023

Judge

N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The court held that the FSCA may impose administrative penalties on peregrini under section 167 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act where the requirements of the section are satisfied and there is a sufficiently close connection between the conduct and South Africa. The court found that service of notice by any means, including electronic means, is sufficient to establish jurisdiction over peregrini for regulatory purposes. The common law was developed to reflect modern digital realities and the public interest in regulating cross-border financial misconduct. The majority decision of the T…

Source excerpt

• Financial Sector Regulation Act
• Jurisdiction Over Peregrini
• Administrative Penalties
• Service Of Process
• Development Of Common Law

Oliver NO v MEC for Health: Western Cape Provincial Department of Health (886/2023)

Oliver NO v MEC for Health: Western Cape Provincial Department of Health (886/2023) [2025] ZASCA 45 (17 April 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

886/2023

Judges

Mocumie, Kgoele, Smith, Unterhalter, Musi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that material amendments reopened the pleadings, extinguishing the deceased’s general damages claim, but remitted the case on possible common-law development.

• Medical Negligence
• Transmissibility Of General Damages
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Litis Contestatio
• Development Of Common Law
• Medical-negligence

Swanepoel v Depuy International Limited (20758/2013)

Swanepoel v Depuy International Limited (20758/2013) [2025] ZAWCHC 9 (21 January 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20758/2013

Judge

Wille

The court found that the defendant, through its conduct in implementing the recall of the defective hip replacement system in South Africa, appointing local agents and attorneys, and accepting service of summons locally, submitted to the jurisdiction of the Western Cape High Court. The action has a real and substantial connection to the forum, as the alleged delict occurred within its territorial jurisdiction and the harm manifested locally. The court held that the attachment of property to found or confirm jurisdiction is no longer an absolute requirement where the summons was served locally…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendant
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Product Liability
• Attachment Of Property
• Development Of Common Law

Joint Venture Comprising Gorogang Plant Razz Civils and Others v Infiniti Insurance Limited (02252/2023)

Joint Venture Comprising Gorogang Plant Razz Civils and Others v Infiniti Insurance Limited (02252/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1048 (15 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

02252/2023

Judge

A W Pullinger

The High Court held that the performance guarantee was a demand guarantee, upheld the Department’s demand, rejected fraud and common-law arguments, and set aside the interim interdict.

• Performance Guarantee
• Interdictory Relief
• Fraud Exception
• Contractual Interpretation
• Development Of Common Law
• Performance-guarantee

Koingnaas Belastingbetalersvereniging v Kamiesberg Local Municipality and Another (2609/2021)

Koingnaas Belastingbetalersvereniging v Kamiesberg Local Municipality and Another (2609/2021) [2024] ZANCHC 111 (11 October 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2609/2021

Judge

M.C. Mamosebo

The court found that the applicant, Koingnaas Belastingbetalersvereniging, lacked locus standi in the counter-application due to non-compliance with its own constitution, which was dispositive of its participation. The applicant's reliance on Van Staden NO and Others v Pro Whiz Group (Pty) Ltd was misplaced, as the right to participate is contingent on compliance with internal governance. The requirements for a final interdict were met by the municipality, which acted to protect its functions from unlawful interference. The applicant's arguments regarding necessity and the development of comm…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Final Interdict
• Development Of Common Law
• Municipal Governance
• Necessity
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Mtshwene v Road Accident Fund (44674/2020)

Mtshwene v Road Accident Fund (44674/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1027 (7 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44674/2020

Judge

A.K. Ramlal

The court held that the plaintiff's claim for general damages is not transmissible to her estate because litis contestatio had not been reached at the time of her death. The court distinguished the Nkala case, noting its unique class action context and constitutional considerations, and reaffirmed the conservative common law position as set out in Ngubane v RAF. The court found no compelling factual or constitutional basis to depart from the settled principle. The plaintiff's dilatory conduct and lack of explanation for delays further weighed against any development of the law in this instanc…

Source excerpt

• Transmissibility Of General Damages
• Litis Contestatio
• Development Of Common Law
• Road Accident Claims

Gross v D.M (2021/43212)

Gross v D.M (2021/43212) [2024] ZAGPJHC 767; 2025 (2) SA 172 (GJ) (6 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/43212

Judge

Windell

High Court dismissed a peregrinus jurisdiction exception in a divorce action, holding the pleaded constitutional challenge and common-law development claim raised a triable issue.

• Divorce Jurisdiction
• Peregrinus Attachment
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Development Of Common Law
• Accrual Claim
• Access To Court

Songo v Minister of Police and Others (63867/2017)

Songo v Minister of Police and Others (63867/2017) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1956 (24 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

63867/2017

Judge

N Davis

The court held that the plaintiff's claim for damages following the overturning of his conviction does not fall under the Implementation Act or the Rome Statute, as these instruments apply only to convictions by the International Criminal Court. The plaintiff conceded that he could not rely on wrongful arrest, detention, or malicious prosecution, and did not meet the requirements for delictual liability. The court found that the circumstances of the case were not exceptional and did not constitute a material miscarriage of justice, as the plaintiff was not completely dissociated from the crim…

Source excerpt

• Wrongful Imprisonment
• Miscarriage Of Justice
• Development Of Common Law
• Special Plea
• Compensation For Wrongful Conviction

Essack and Another v Sun International South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (2020/23294)

Essack and Another v Sun International South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (2020/23294) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1358 (15 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/23294

Judge

Bester

The High Court refused leave to appeal after upholding an exception, finding the plaintiff had not pleaded the required knowledge, negligence, or a pleaded common-law development case.

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Statutory Duties Of Casino Licensees
• Aquilian Liability
• Development Of Common Law
• Excluded Persons In Gambling
• Leave To Appeal Requirements

Mmabasotho Christinah Olesitse N.O. v Minister of Police (CCT 183/22)

Mmabasotho Christinah Olesitse N.O. v Minister of Police (CCT 183/22) [2023] ZACC 35; 2024 (2) BCLR 238 (CC) (14 November 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 183/22

Judges

Zondo, Maya, Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Makgoka, Mathopo, Potterill, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal erred in applying the 'once and for all' rule to bar a subsequent claim for malicious prosecution where the claims for unlawful arrest/detention and malicious prosecution are distinct causes of action with different legal elements. The application of the rule in this context amounted to a development of the common law, which was not undertaken in accordance with the Constitution. The courts failed to consider whether the rule suffered any deficiency at odds with the Bill of Rights, particularly section 34, which gua…

Source excerpt

• Once And For All Rule
• Malicious Prosecution
• Unlawful Arrest And Detention
• Section 34 Access To Courts
• Development Of Common Law
• Prescription