South Africa Case Law

MEC for the Department of Public Works, Eastern Cape and Another v Ikamva Architects CC (544/2021)

MEC for the Department of Public Works, Eastern Cape and Another v Ikamva Architects CC (544/2021) [2022] ZASCA 184; [2023] 1 All SA 579 (SCA); 2023 (2) SA 514 (SCA) (20 December 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

544/2021

Judges

Van Der Merwe, Gorven, Basson, Windell, Salie-Hlophe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the relief sought by the applicants, namely an order prohibiting execution of a valid and binding default judgment, is not permissible under section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the sanctity of court orders and the rule of law require that valid judgments be respected and enforced unless set aside by rescission or appeal. There is no authority in South African law for a court to render nugatory an extant, valid, and binding judgment by prohibiting its enforcement. The cases relied upon by the applicants, which involved repaymen…

Source excerpt

• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Section 172 Constitution
• Enforceability Of Court Orders
• Default Judgment
• Self Review
• Res Judicata

Eke v Parsons (CCT214/14)

Eke v Parsons (CCT214/14) [2015] ZACC 30; 2015 (11) BCLR 1319 (CC); 2016 (3) SA 37 (CC) (29 September 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 214/14

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, Molemela, Nkabinde, Theron, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that a settlement agreement made an order of court acquires the status of a court order and is enforceable as such, bringing finality to the dispute and rendering the underlying litigation res judicata. The Court rejected a formalistic approach that would limit the efficacy of settlement orders, emphasizing that courts must ensure orders are competent, proper, and enforceable. The Court found that, although rule 32 of the Uniform Rules does not provide for a second summary judgment application, the parties' agreement and the interests of justice justified the pro…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreements
• Summary Judgment
• Rule 32 Uniform Rules
• Access To Court
• Res Judicata
• Enforceability Of Court Orders

S v Savoi, In re: Savoi (1306/2011)

S v Savoi, In re: Savoi (1306/2011) [2011] ZANCHC 23 (7 October 2011)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1306/2011

Judge

Hughes-Madondo

The court dismissed an application to amend bail conditions so the accused could travel abroad for business, finding the proposed order unenforceable.

• Bail Conditions
• Changed Circumstances
• Enforceability Of Court Orders
• Jurisdictional Conflict
• Bail-conditions
• Criminal-procedure-act