South Africa Case Law

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Malvigenix NPC t/a Wecanwin and Others (90/2023)

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Malvigenix NPC t/a Wecanwin and Others (90/2023) [2024] ZASCA 76 (16 May 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

90/2023

Judges

Schippers, Nicholls, Mothle, Tolmay, Mbhele

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the prior judgments invalidating and setting aside the City’s 2012 supplementary valuation roll and 2013 general valuation roll were judgments in rem, applying to all affected properties in Lombardy Estate, not only to the original applicants. The invalidation of the categorisation of properties as 'vacant' automatically rendered the rates imposed under those rolls invalid for all affected properties. There was no need for Wecanwin or other property owners to institute further review proceedings. The City’s reliance on the Oudekraal principle was misplace…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Property Rates Act
• Valuation Rolls
• Judgment In Rem
• Public Law Duties
• Equality Before Law

Mudawo and Others v Minister of Transport and Another (011795/2022)

Mudawo and Others v Minister of Transport and Another (011795/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 258 (26 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

011795/2022

Judges

N Davis, B F Mnyovu, A Kok

The court held that the Minister of Transport and the Road Accident Fund acted ultra vires by imposing requirements in the RAF1 claim form and Management Directive that exclude illegal foreigners from claiming compensation under the Road Accident Fund Act. The phrase 'any person' in section 17 of the Act is broad and inclusive, and there is no textual, contextual, or purposive basis to interpret it restrictively. The administrative actions of the Minister and RAF, whether by policy decision or directive, cannot lawfully amend or limit the scope of the Act. The impugned requirements are theref…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires Review
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Policy Directive Review
• Statutory Interpretation
• Equality Before Law

T.C v B.C (21300/2022)

T.C v B.C (21300/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 48 (25 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21300/2022

Judge

Mahomed

The court found that the applicant demonstrated a need for interim maintenance and a contribution toward legal costs. She was forced out of the marital home, has no income, and cannot afford legal representation or contact with her children. The respondent failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure and continues to live comfortably in the matrimonial home, with access to funds for litigation. The parties' joint estate and the applicant's right to dignity and support as a spouse in community of property were emphasised. The respondent's claims of indebtedness and inability to pay were n…

Source excerpt

• Interim Maintenance
• Contribution To Legal Costs
• Rule 43 Application
• Duty Of Support
• Equality Before Law

Chauke v S (A139/2020)

Chauke v S (A139/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 321 (15 March 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A139/2020

Judges

Sutherland, Moila, Matjele

The court found that the trial magistrate properly complied with the requirements of sections 162 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act by referring the child complainant for psychological assessment and appropriately admonishing him to speak the truth. The evidence of the complainant, corroborated by medical findings and the neighbour's testimony, was consistent and credible. The appellant's version was riddled with contradictions and lacked corroboration. The court held that the State proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding sentence, the court found no misdirection or compelling…

Source excerpt

• Rape Of A Minor
• Competency Of Child Witness
• Minimum Sentencing
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Equality Before Law

Tebeila Institute of Leadership, Education, Governance and Training v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (11708/2021)

Tebeila Institute of Leadership, Education, Governance and Training v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (11708/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 166 (19 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

11708/2021

Judge

Davis

The High Court struck an urgent constitutional challenge to section 25(3)(a)(i) of the Legal Practice Act from the roll for lack of urgency.

• Right Of Appearance
• Equality Before Law
• Urgent Application Requirements
• Amicus Curiae Role
• Urgent-applications
• Amicus-curiae

Herbert NO and Others v Senqu Municipality and Others (2457/2016)

Herbert NO and Others v Senqu Municipality and Others (2457/2016) [2020] ZAECGHC 45 (19 May 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

2457/2016

Judge

Roberson

The court found that the Trust and its predecessors were not the targets of racially discriminatory legislation and did not suffer dispossession or denial of access to land. Instead, they benefited from the system, occupying land for profit and facilitating migrant labour. The purpose of the Upgrading Act, as established by Constitutional Court authority, is to provide secure tenure and redress to Africans disadvantaged by apartheid-era laws. The Trust does not fall within the class of persons for whom the Act was enacted. Accordingly, the Trust is not entitled to claim conversion of its perm…

Source excerpt

• Upgrading Of Land Tenure Rights Act
• Constitutional Redress
• Tenure Conversion
• Discriminatory Legislation
• Section 25 Property Rights
• Equality Before Law

Nedbank limited v Gqirana NO and Others (1203/2018; 1298/2018; 1777/2018; 3434/2018; 3706/2018; 49/2019; 264/2019)

Nedbank limited v Gqirana NO and Others (1203/2018; 1298/2018; 1777/2018; 3434/2018; 3706/2018; 49/2019; 264/2019) [2019] ZAECGHC 71; [2019] 4 All SA 211 (ECG); 2019 (6) SA 139 (ECG) (30 July 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1203/2018; 1298/2018; 1777/2018; 3434/2018; 3706/2018; 49/2019; 264/2019

Judges

M J Lowe, B C Hartle, M S Jolwana

The court held that, while the High Court retains concurrent jurisdiction with the Magistrates’ Courts, the constitutional imperative of access to justice and equality, as embodied in Section 34 and Section 9 of the Constitution, requires that NCA matters falling within the monetary jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Courts must be brought in those courts as the forum of first adjudication. This is necessary to ensure practical and effective access to justice for financially distressed and previously disadvantaged persons, given the cost, accessibility, and procedural advantages of the Magistra…

Source excerpt

• Concurrent Jurisdiction
• Access To Justice
• National Credit Act
• Forum Selection
• Section 34 Right
• Equality Before Law

Holomisa v Holomisa and Another (CCT146/17)

Holomisa v Holomisa and Another (CCT146/17) [2018] ZACC 40; 2019 (2) BCLR 247 (CC) (23 October 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT146/17

Judges

Mogoeng, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that section 7(3) of the Divorce Act unfairly excluded certain Transkei marriages from redistribution relief on divorce.

• Equality Before Law
• Matrimonial Property Regimes
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Reading In Remedy
• Direct Access
• Gender Discrimination

H.M.S v T.S (66405/2013)

H.M.S v T.S (66405/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 48 (8 February 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

66405/2013

Judge

D B Tshabalala

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for contribution to costs, given the lengthy marriage, the respondent's greater financial resources, and the need for equality before the law. The respondent's assets and income were substantially higher than the applicant's, and the respondent had been in contempt of previous orders, necessitating further litigation. However, the court considered the scale of costs claimed excessive and awarded a reduced contribution of R75,000.00, payable in two instalments, to enable the applicant to prepare and present her case adequate…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Contribution To Costs
• Divorce Proceedings
• Duty To Support
• Contempt Of Court
• Equality Before Law

Liesching and Others v S and Another (CCT245/15)

Liesching and Others v S and Another (CCT245/15) [2016] ZACC 41; 2017 (4) BCLR 454 (CC); 2017 (2) SACR 193 (CC) (15 November 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 245/15

Judges

Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mbha, Mhlantla, Musi, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that the definition of 'appeal' in section 1 of the Superior Courts Act does not exclude all criminal matters from the scope of Chapter 5. Section 17(2)(f) applies to both civil and criminal proceedings, allowing the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal to refer a petition for reconsideration in exceptional circumstances. The procedure under section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not an appeal and only applies after all recognised appeal procedures are exhausted. The President's interpretation, which excluded criminal matters from section 17(2)(f), crea…

Source excerpt

• Superior Courts Act Section 17 2 F
• Criminal Appeal Procedure
• Adducing Further Evidence
• Bill Of Rights Interpretation
• Equality Before Law
• Fair Trial Rights