Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
M.R v L.O and Others (2023/070007) [2024] ZAGPJHC 371 (16 April 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application to set aside or suspend a maintenance-related writ of execution, holding the respondent could elect the forum and awarding costs.
PNM Short Hauliers (Pty) Ltd v Izusa Carriers CC and Another (269/2019) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 52 (11 July 2022)
The court held that consolidation under Rule 11 is limited to actions already before the High Court and does not extend to matters in the Magistrate's Court. The High Court's inherent power under Section 173 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to override the substantive right of a party to choose its forum, nor can it be used to regulate the process of another court. The applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of a legislative lacuna, as adequate procedures such as lis pendens were available. The respondent's right to select the forum is paramount and cannot be usurped without consen…
Source excerpt
TMT Services & Supplies (Pty) Ltd t/a Traffic Management Technologies v MEC: Department of Transport, Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (1059/2020) [2022] ZASCA 27; 2022 (4) SA 583 (SCA) (15 March 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the definition of 'court' in section 1 of PAJA exclusively determines which courts have jurisdiction to review administrative action. Section 21(1) of the Superior Courts Act does not apply to restrict or supplement these jurisdictional grounds. The Western Cape High Court had jurisdiction because the appellant is domiciled and ordinarily resident within its area. Where concurrent jurisdiction exists, the applicant may choose the forum, and the chosen court cannot decline jurisdiction except in cases of abuse of process, which was not established here. Th…
Source excerpt
Simelane v Road Accident Fund (42992/2015) [2021] ZAGPPHC 347 (17 May 2021)
The Court found that the Plaintiff's claim for loss of support was always within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court, and the Plaintiff, as dominus litis, elected to institute proceedings in the High Court despite this. The Defendant's failure to object to the forum or request transfer did not oust the Court's discretion regarding costs. While the Defendant's conduct was unsatisfactory, punitive costs are not justified solely by forum selection, and the Plaintiff had already been awarded High Court costs for the merits stage. The Court held that costs should be awarded on the Magistrat…
Source excerpt
First Rand Bank Ltd v Mostert and Another; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Meyer and Another; Nedbank Ltd t/a MFC v Makhatini (4050/18 ;3269/19 ; 3166/19) [2020] ZAMPMHC 35; [2020] 4 All SA 126 (ML) ; 2020 (6) SA 543 (ML) (30 July 2020)
The court held that, to promote access to justice and equality as required by the Constitution and the National Credit Act, civil actions and applications arising under the NCA that fall within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Courts must be instituted in those courts. The NCA, interpreted purposively and in light of constitutional values, demonstrates legislative intent to make the Magistrates’ Court the court of first instance for NCA matters, regardless of the monetary amount claimed. Consent clauses purporting to confer High Court jurisdiction are unlawful where the Magistrates’ Court…
Source excerpt
Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd v University of Sport South Africa (NPO) and Others (76139/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC 371 (13 July 2020)
The court found that both the applicant and respondents raised issues of sufficient importance and complexity to warrant consideration by a higher court. The grounds for appeal include the status of the respondents as organs of state, the constitutional permissibility of differentiating between public and private higher education institutions in the context of sporting events, and whether the applicant has standing and approached the correct forum. The court held that these issues require authoritative determination and that leave to appeal should be granted to the Full Court of the Division.…
Source excerpt
World Net Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Donsantel 133 CC and Another (AR 350/2018) [2019] ZAKZPHC 78; [2020] 1 All SA 593 (KZP); 2020 (3) SA 542 (KZP) (29 November 2019)
The court held that magistrates’ courts have no jurisdiction to decide maritime claims once jurisdiction is challenged, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
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)
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
First National Bank v Lukhele and seven other cases (01.16; 32.16; 33.16; 35.16; 40.16; 84.16; 89.16; 107.16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 616 (16 May 2016)
High Court struck eight default judgment applications from the roll after finding the cases were issued in the wrong circuit court and that forum shopping undermined access to justice.
South African Municipal Workers' Union and Others v Mokgatla and Others (20810/2014) [2016] ZASCA 24; [2016] 2 All SA 451 (SCA); [2016] 6 BLLR 560 (SCA); (2016) 37 ILJ 1317 (SCA); 2016 (5) SA 89 (SCA) (18 March 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the dispute, as pleaded by the respondents, concerned non-compliance with the constitution of a trade union and thus fell squarely within s 158(1)(e)(i) of the Labour Relations Act. The respondents' attempt to frame the matter as a common law issue was irrelevant, as jurisdiction is determined by the pleadings and the statutory framework. The court reaffirmed that the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes, and the High Court's jurisdiction is excluded. The previous case law relied upon by the High Court was distinguished or clarified…
Source excerpt
Explore more
