South Africa Case Law

Mabundla v Bollore Logistics (J1038/23)

Mabundla v Bollore Logistics (J1038/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 318 (10 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1038/23

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court found that the jurisdictional requirements for making the settlement agreement an order of court under section 158(1)(c) and 158(1A) of the LRA were satisfied. However, the respondent had already complied with the terms of the agreement by paying the applicant the full amount of R150,000.00, as evidenced by proof of payment and the applicant's own concession. As a result, granting the application would have no practical effect, as the agreement had been fully performed. The applicant's claim for additional money was irrelevant to the present application and should be pursued…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Section 158 1 C Lra
• Jurisdictional Preconditions
• Enforcement Of Settlement
• Practical Effect
• Proof Of Payment

Vally v ELA Asset Management and Another (2023/030182)

Vally v ELA Asset Management and Another (2023/030182) [2024] ZAGPJHC 601 (27 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/030182

Judge

Dlamini

The High Court refused to make a settlement agreement an order of court because it did not settle pending litigation, but sent the matter to trial.

• Settlement Agreement
• Enforcement Of Settlement
• Court Order
• Financial Services Dispute
• Settlement-agreement
• Enforcement-of-settlement-agreements

Cloete v Van Zyl (3384/2017)

Cloete v Van Zyl (3384/2017) [2024] ZAECMKHC 48 (2 May 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

3384/2017

Judge

L F Monakali

The court held that a settlement reached the day before trial was binding on both defendants and made it an order of court, despite their later attempt to withdraw.

• Settlement Agreement
• Authority Of Attorney
• Damages From Veld Fire
• Enforcement Of Settlement
• Consensus Ad Idem
• Settlement-agreement

Frangandonis v E Gardner Development Projects CC (GCC/03/2019)

Frangandonis v E Gardner Development Projects CC (GCC/03/2019) [2019] ZACONAF 2 (5 March 2019)

Court

Consumer Affairs Court

Case number

GCC/03/2019

Judges

M A du Plessis, P Opperman, I Chiumya

The Consumer Affairs Court for Gauteng made the parties’ signed settlement agreement an order of court, giving it enforceable effect.

• Settlement Agreement
• Enforcement Of Settlement
• Settlement-agreement
• Enforcement-of-settlement
• Consent-orders

Tsieco v Dada Motors (NW15/2017)

Tsieco v Dada Motors (NW15/2017) [2018] ZACONAF 10 (13 February 2018)

Court

Consumer Affairs Court

Case number

NW15/2017

Judges

J Nkomo, K Kgomongwe, P Hlahane

The parties confirmed a settlement, and the Consumer Affairs Court made it an order of court and awarded costs for enforcement.

• Settlement Agreement
• Enforcement Of Settlement
• Settlement-agreement
• Enforcement-of-settlement
• Civil-procedure
• Consent-orders

M v M and Another (230/2016)

M v M and Another (230/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 132 (4 August 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

230/2016

Judge

M C Mokgobo

The court found that the applicant was attempting to enforce the deed of settlement against the second respondent, who was not a party to the agreement, and that such enforcement is not permissible. The living annuity administered by the second respondent constitutes a pension benefit protected under section 37A(1) of the Pension Funds Act, which applies to both the capital and monthly pay-outs while under the fund's control. Any order directing the fund administrator to pay a portion of the monthly proceeds to the applicant would amount to an impermissible reduction, transfer, or attachment…

Source excerpt

• Divorce Settlement
• Pension Interest
• Living Annuity
• Section 37a Pension Funds Act
• Enforcement Of Settlement
• Attachment Of Pension Benefits

M.C.M v M.R.M and Another (DIV 129/2012)

M.C.M v M.R.M and Another (DIV 129/2012) [2014] ZANWHC 31 (30 October 2014)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

DIV 129/2012

Judge

R D Hendricks

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought because the first respondent had retired before the divorce was finalized, causing his pension interest to cease to exist for purposes of the Divorce Act and Pension Funds Act. The urgent interim order for safekeeping of pension benefits was no longer competent, as the divorce settlement agreement, incorporated into the decree of divorce, provided for the applicant's entitlement to a specific amount. The applicant's remedy lies in enforcing the settlement agreement, not in compelling the pension fund to pay out benefits t…

Source excerpt

• Pension Interest On Divorce
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Urgent Interdict
• Pension Fund Act Section 37a
• Divorce Act Section 7
• Enforcement Of Settlement

Umanzi Plant & Sales BK v Iceburg Trading 717 BK t/a Pride Rock Drilling and Blasting (4302/2012)

Umanzi Plant & Sales BK v Iceburg Trading 717 BK t/a Pride Rock Drilling and Blasting (4302/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 36 (28 January 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4302/2012

Judge

K. J. Moloi

The court found that a binding settlement agreement was reached between the parties on 3 October 2012, with the amount of R297 828,84 agreed upon after concessions by the applicant. The respondent's subsequent objections and recalculations were made after the agreement and lacked merit. The confirmation letter, written by the respondent's accountant who was present at the meeting, further corroborated the existence of the agreement. The respondent's claims regarding lack of authority and absence of a signature were dismissed as artificial and contradictory. The alleged disputes of fact were n…

Source excerpt

• Contractual Settlement
• Enforcement Of Settlement
• Genuine Dispute Of Fact
• Punitive Costs

Vermaak v Road Accident Fund (3491/2009)

Vermaak v Road Accident Fund (3491/2009) [2011] ZANWHC 69 (7 November 2011)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

3491/2009

Judge

M J Ramagaga

The court held that a signed draft order was a settlement agreement under Rule 41, not a Rule 34 offer to settle, and made it an order of court.

• Settlement Agreement
• Rule 34 Offer To Settle
• Rule 41 Settlement
• Enforcement Of Settlement
• Civil-procedure
• Settlement-agreement

Rohde v Rohde and Others (4966/09)

Rohde v Rohde and Others (4966/09) [2011] ZAFSHC 157 (15 September 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4966/09

Judge

E. M. Kubushi

High Court contempt application dismissed: the settlement obligations were mostly money judgments, and the trust/trustees were not parties to the divorce proceedings.

• Contempt Of Court
• Enforcement Of Settlement
• Trust Law
• Ad Factum Praestandum
• Ad Pecuniam Solvendam
• Contempt-of-court