South Africa Case Law

Competition Commission of South Africa v Steinhoff International Holdings Pty Limited (A283/2022)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Steinhoff International Holdings Pty Limited (A283/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 328 (28 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A283/2022

Judges

Francis-Subbiah, J Nyati, A Africa

The High Court upheld the Commission’s appeal, set aside the refusal of condonation, and granted condonation for the late answering affidavit in a competition-law review.

• Collusive Price Fixing
• Administrative Penalty
• Condonation
• Ultra Vires Review
• Parent Company Liability
• Exclusive Jurisdiction

Dario Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Tembisa Superspar v Justice for All Workers of South Africa (JAWSA) and Others (2023-085941)

Dario Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Tembisa Superspar v Justice for All Workers of South Africa (JAWSA) and Others (2023-085941) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1266 (27 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-085941

Judge

Nyathi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a case for confirmation of the spoliation order. The dispute arose from a protected strike, and the applicant had already sought relief in the Labour Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The applicant did not provide proper authorisation for instituting proceedings, and failed to join necessary parties, including individual workers and mall management. The matter was moot as the employees had been dismissed and there was no ongoing disturbance. The court exercised its discretion not to confirm the rule nisi and dismi…

Source excerpt

• Spoliation
• Urgent Interdict
• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Non Joinder
• Mootness
• Strike Action

Jet Education Services NPO v Manufacturing Engineering and Related Services Sector Education and Training Authority (2023/070358,2023/071032)

Jet Education Services NPO v Manufacturing Engineering and Related Services Sector Education and Training Authority (2023/070358,2023/071032) [2024] ZAGPJHC 709 (2 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/070358,2023/071032

Judge

F Snyckers

The court held that both the JET and MerSETA applications are matters arising from the Skills Development Act, as they concern the legality of discretionary grants and contracts awarded by MerSETA in fulfilment of its statutory mandate. The statutory ouster in section 31(1) applies broadly to all disputes causally connected to the SDA, not only those directly invoking its provisions. The court rejected the argument that parties could confer jurisdiction on the High Court by consent where a statutory ouster applies. The contracts and disputes in question are central to the statutory functions…

Source excerpt

• Skills Development Act
• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Self Review
• Discretionary Grants
• Administrative Action
• Jurisdictional Ouster

Giving Foundation v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Another (0018/24EC)

Giving Foundation v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Another (0018/24EC) [2024] ZAEC 13 (13 May 2024)

Court

Electoral Court

Case number

0018/24EC

Judges

Modiba, Steyn, Yacoob

The Electoral Court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the President has fulfilled his constitutional obligation under section 49(2) of the Constitution, as this issue falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court in terms of section 167(4)(e). The relief sought by the Foundation is premised on a finding that the proclamation is unlawful and invalid due to alleged non-compliance with section 49(2), but this is not a determination the Electoral Court is empowered to make. The Foundation's arguments regarding alternative jurisdictional gateways are unpersuasive, and t…

Source excerpt

• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Electoral Proclamation
• Constitutional Obligation
• Just And Equitable Relief

Motsoeneng v Gauteng Department of Health (2023-77447)

Motsoeneng v Gauteng Department of Health (2023-77447) [2024] ZAGPJHC 315 (27 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-77447

Judge

Moorcroft

The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to extend a temporary nursing employment order, holding that the relief had expired and the labour dispute belonged in the Labour Court.

• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Unfair Dismissal
• Non Joinder
• Interim Relief
• Labour-law
• High-court-jurisdiction

Nedbank Limited v Abrahams (2023-003529)

Nedbank Limited v Abrahams (2023-003529) [2024] ZAGPJHC 285 (18 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-003529

Judge

B M Gilbert

The High Court granted leave to appeal on whether section 127(8)(a) of the National Credit Act ousts High Court jurisdiction and whether Mateman is binding.

• National Credit Act
• Jurisdiction Of Courts
• Leave To Appeal
• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Binding Precedent
• Amicus Curiae

Nedbank Limited v Abrahams (2023-003529; 2023-031890 ; 2023-053164; 2023-051021; ; 2023-039182; 2023-039212;)

Nedbank Limited v Abrahams (2023-003529; 2023-031890 ; 2023-053164; 2023-051021; ; 2023-039182; 2023-039212;) [2024] ZAGPJHC 31; 2025 (2) SA 545 (GJ) (12 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-003529; 2023-031890; 2023-053164; 2023-051021; 2023-039182; 2023-039212

Judge

B M Gilbert

Section 127(8)(a) of the National Credit Act, by necessary implication, confers exclusive jurisdiction on magistrates' courts for claims to recover shortfalls after voluntary surrender of goods under credit agreements. The phrase 'in terms of the Magistrates' Courts Act' is not superfluous; it serves to exclude the High Court's jurisdiction for these matters. The High Court's jurisdiction is not preserved by general statutory language elsewhere in the Act, and the specific wording in section 127(8)(a) demonstrates a deliberate legislative choice to mandate proceedings in the magistrates' cour…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Magistrates Courts Jurisdiction
• Voluntary Surrender
• Shortfall Claims
• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Statutory Interpretation

Venter N.O and Another v Alba Skrynwerkersgeboue (Pty) Ltd (1871/2021)

Venter N.O and Another v Alba Skrynwerkersgeboue (Pty) Ltd (1871/2021) [2022] ZANCHC 38 (22 July 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1871/2021

Judge

Mamosebo

The High Court's jurisdiction is not ousted by section 69(3) of the Insolvency Act, as neither the Act nor its interpretation excludes such jurisdiction expressly or by necessary implication. The applicants, as liquidators, are entitled to seek relief under section 69, and the requirement for a deputy sheriff's inventory does not apply in voluntary liquidation where assets are subject to a tacit hypothec and have been inventoried by an authorised agent. The applicants have made out a proper case for declaratory relief regarding the respondent's contraventions of sections 142 and 145 of the In…

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Act Search And Seizure
• Liquidation Procedure
• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Declaratory Relief
• Tacit Hypothec
• Punitive Costs

Surve and Others v Nedbank Limited and Another (698/2022)

Surve and Others v Nedbank Limited and Another (698/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 19 (14 February 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

698/2022

Judge

Francis

The High Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the interim interdict sought by the applicants, as both the Equality Court and the Competition Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to determine interim and interlocutory relief in matters of unfair discrimination and prohibited practices, respectively. The statutory frameworks of PEPUDA and the Competition Act assign such powers expressly to these specialist bodies, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court. The application was brought on an urgent basis, but urgency was accepted. However, since the relief sought was within t…

Source excerpt

• Bank Account Termination
• Interim Interdict
• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Reputational Risk
• Unfair Discrimination
• Abuse Of Dominance

Competition Commission of South Africa v Group Five Construction Limited (195/20)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Group Five Construction Limited (195/20) [2021] ZASCA 37 (8 April 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

195/20

Judges

NAVSA, ZONDI, DAMBUZA, ROGERS, MABINDLA-BOQWANA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the issues raised by Group Five in its review application—namely, the legality and validity of the Competition Commission's initiation and referral of the complaint, and the withdrawal of immunity under the Corporate Leniency Policy—are questions of legality and vires. These fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court and are not exclusively reserved for the Competition Tribunal or Competition Appeal Court under section 62(1) of the Competition Act. Section 62(2) specifically contemplates such questions, and the jurisdiction of the High Court is not ex…

Source excerpt

• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Legality Of Referral
• Concurrent Jurisdiction