South Africa Case Law

Prime African (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holding SOC Ltd and Others (2025/070166)

Prime African (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holding SOC Ltd and Others (2025/070166) [2025] ZAWCHC 306 (25 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2025/070166

Judge

Nziweni

The court found that Eskom was not in wilful contempt of the 2024 order. Although Eskom failed to meet the deadline for the emergency procurement process, the evidence demonstrated substantial compliance and bona fide efforts to comply, with delays attributable to legitimate procurement complexities. The applicant failed to prove intentional or flagrant disregard of the order. The request to amend the 2024 order was rejected, as the principle of finality precludes substantive changes except for clerical errors or ambiguities, which were not present. The interdict relief sought was incompetent…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Public Procurement
• Amendment Of Court Order
• Interim Interdict
• Finality Of Judgments

Cell C (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (30959/2019)

Cell C (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (30959/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 265 (17 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

30959/2019

Judge

N. Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The court held that the issue of review jurisdiction had already been finally determined by Tolmay J, whose judgment was not appealed and remains binding on the parties. The pending Constitutional Court appeal in the Richards Bay matter, even if it results in a different interpretation of section 47(9)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act, will have no legal consequence in the present matter unless Tolmay J's judgment is set aside. The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that a stay of proceedings would serve the interests of justice, the parties, or the court. Accordingly, the a…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Proceedings
• Review Jurisdiction
• Customs And Excise Act
• Finality Of Judgments

Pather v S (1490/24P)

Pather v S (1490/24P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 30 (28 March 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

1490/24P

Judge

Veerasamy

The High Court refused a postponement and dismissed an application to extend bail beyond earlier consent orders, holding that the relief would create conflicting orders.

• Extension Of Bail
• Postponement
• Inherent Jurisdiction
• Finality Of Judgments
• Section 173 Constitution
• Criminal Procedure Act

Mafune v LTT Brake and Clutch/The Manager (Rev17/2023)

Mafune v LTT Brake and Clutch/The Manager (Rev17/2023) [2023] ZALMPTHC 4 (17 March 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

Rev17/2023

Judge

Kganyago

The court found that the applicant failed to establish reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the commissioner. The commissioner had previously adjudicated a matter involving the applicant and had ruled in his favour, demonstrating impartiality. The prior criminal matter involving Bergvlei was unrelated to the present dispute, and Bergvlei was not a party to the current proceedings. The applicant did not bring a formal application for recusal, and the commissioner followed proper trial procedures. The applicant's dissatisfaction with the outcome did not constitute grounds for review u…

Source excerpt

• Small Claims Court Review
• Apprehended Bias
• Recusal
• Finality Of Judgments

Caramellos Trust IT 730/2004 v Master Recyclers BFN (Pty) Ltd and Another (363/2022)

Caramellos Trust IT 730/2004 v Master Recyclers BFN (Pty) Ltd and Another (363/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 235 (13 September 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

363/2022

Judge

Mathebula

The court found that the requirements for res judicata were satisfied, as the previous order was granted by a competent court between the same parties, on the same cause of action, and with respect to the same subject-matter. The applicant did not seek to set aside, amend, or abandon the previous order, which was final and definitive of the parties' rights. Allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation were not relevant to the present proceedings, as the previous order was not conditional or pending further relief. Granting a similar order would be contrary to the principle of finality in litig…

Source excerpt

• Res Judicata
• Municipal By Laws
• Waste Management
• Finality Of Judgments

Webb v Fourie and Another (3571/2018)

Webb v Fourie and Another (3571/2018) [2020] ZAMPMHC 36 (30 January 2020)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3571/2018

Judge

Brauckmann

The court found that the original order was ambiguous and did not reflect its true intention, as it failed to specify whether the sequestration was provisional or final and omitted the required rule nisi and return date. The error was patent and arose from the judge's own drafting, not from the conduct of the parties. The requirements for a provisional sequestration order under section 10 of the Insolvency Act were met, and the relief sought by the applicant was for provisional sequestration. In terms of Rule 42(1)(b), the court has discretion to vary its order to correct such ambiguity and o…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Sequestration
• Variation Of Court Order
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Insolvency Act Section 10
• Rule Nisi
• Finality Of Judgments

Billings v Road Accident Fund (12247/2001)

Billings v Road Accident Fund (12247/2001) [2018] ZAGPPHC 641 (28 February 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

12247/2001

Judge

K La M Manamela

The High Court varied a 2005 RAF order to remove the R25,000 cap, holding the claim had not been finally determined and could proceed under the amended Act.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Variation Of Court Order
• Finality Of Judgments
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Transitional Provisions
• Personal Injury Claims

Bosaletse N.O. and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (1891/2013)

Bosaletse N.O. and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (1891/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 50 (15 April 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1891/2013

Judges

Mocumie, Molemela, Jordaan

The High Court dismissed leave to appeal, holding the order concerned interim relief and was not appealable because it was not final in effect.

• Appealability Of Orders
• Finality Of Judgments
• Interim Relief
• Leave To Appeal
• Appealability-of-orders
• Finality-of-judgments

Swart v Absa Bank Ltd (11975/08)

Swart v Absa Bank Ltd (11975/08) [2008] ZAWCHC 114; 2009 (5) SA 219 (C) (9 December 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11975/08

Judge

A.H. Veldhuizen

The court held that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for rescission under both common law and the rules of court. The applicant's reason for seeking rescission—namely, to clear his credit record and facilitate future borrowing—did not constitute sufficient cause. The cause relied upon did not exist at the time the judgment was granted, and there was no causal connection between the circumstances giving rise to the rescission application and the original judgment. The court rejected the broader approach adopted in Damon and RFS Catering Supplies, reaffirming that the inherent juri…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 31 2 B
• Rule 42
• Finality Of Judgments

Sandvik Mining and Construction RSA (Pty) Ltd v South African Wetland Rehabilitation (Association Incorporated Under Section 21) (07/14045)

Sandvik Mining and Construction RSA (Pty) Ltd v South African Wetland Rehabilitation (Association Incorporated Under Section 21) (07/14045) [2008] ZAGPHC 468 (7 November 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

07/14045

Judge

P.A. Meyer

The High Court refused to vary a summary judgment order to correct the defendant’s citation, holding that Rule 42(1) and the common law did not apply.

• Variation Of Judgment
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Finality Of Judgments
• Citation Error
• Common Law Variation
• Rule-42-variation