South Africa Case Law

Montsioa and Others v eJoburg Retirement Fund and Others (43479/2021)

Montsioa and Others v eJoburg Retirement Fund and Others (43479/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 788 (11 October 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

43479/2021

Judge

M A Makume

The court held that it was empowered under Section 30 of the Pension Funds Act to review and substitute the discretionary allocation of a death benefit by the Board of Trustees where the allocation was irrational or not supported by evidence. The allocation of 15% to the third respondent was not covered by the Act, as the third respondent was neither a spouse nor a dependant and no evidence of dependency was provided. The Trustees contradicted themselves regarding the basis for allocation and failed to justify their decision. The requirements for leave to appeal under Section 17(1)(a)(i) and/…

Source excerpt

• Pension Funds Act
• Death Benefit Allocation
• High Court Jurisdiction
• Discretionary Powers Of Trustees

Janse van Vuuren v Roets and Others, Nel v Roets and Others (37407/2018)

Janse van Vuuren v Roets and Others, Nel v Roets and Others (37407/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 428 (3 September 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37407/2018

Judges

Sutherland, Carelse, Maier-Frawley

The Full Court held that the High Court does not have jurisdiction as a court of first instance to terminate debt review under the National Credit Act. The statutory scheme provides specific remedies for consumers seeking release from debt review, notably section 71, which prescribes the procedure for termination after a rearrangement order. Where no rearrangement order exists, the consumer may present further facts to the magistrate under section 87. The concepts of over-indebtedness and debt review are statutory creations, and the courts' powers are strictly delineated by the Act. Any anoma…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Debt Review Termination
• High Court Jurisdiction
• Over Indebtedness
• Section 71 Remedy

Road Accident Fund v Isaacs (1552/2014)

Road Accident Fund v Isaacs (1552/2014) [2017] ZANCHC 37 (21 April 2017)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1552/2014

Judge

Erasmus

The High Court granted the Road Accident Fund leave to appeal against a costs order, finding another court could reasonably differ on the High Court scale.

• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Award
• Judicial Discretion
• High Court Jurisdiction
• Leave-to-appeal
• Costs-order

Masemola Taxi Association and Others v MEC of Roads and Transport (Limpopo Province) and Another (7708/2016)

Masemola Taxi Association and Others v MEC of Roads and Transport (Limpopo Province) and Another (7708/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 81 (12 February 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

7708/2016

Judge

N Davis

The court found that all applicants, respondents, and impoundment events were located within the area of jurisdiction of the Limpopo Division. The recent ministerial notice, effective 25 January 2016, established the Limpopo Division's jurisdiction and terminated the Gauteng Division's concurrent jurisdiction. The application was launched in the Gauteng Division without any jurisdictional connecting factor to Gauteng. The applicants' argument regarding the taxi route passing through Gauteng was rejected, as the alleged offences and impoundments occurred in Limpopo. The point in limine regardi…

Source excerpt

• High Court Jurisdiction
• Impoundment Of Vehicles
• Urgent Interdict
• Operating Licence Conditions

Drs De Beer & De Jager Radioloe v Padongelukkefonds (26801/2007)

Drs De Beer & De Jager Radioloe v Padongelukkefonds (26801/2007) [2008] ZAGPHC 316 (13 August 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

26801/2007

Judges

Du Plessis, C Pretorius, Jooste

Costs were awarded against the Road Accident Fund on the High Court scale, capped at the capital amount claimed in each application.

• Costs Award
• High Court Jurisdiction
• Rule 42 Amendment
• Direct Claims Against Road Accident Fund
• Costs-award
• High-court-costs

Gentle and Another v S (A1033/2002)

Gentle and Another v S (A1033/2002) [2003] ZAWCHC 6; [2003] 1 All SA 669 (C) (20 February 2003)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A1033/2002

Judges

Selikowitz, Blignault, Knoll

The Supreme Court of Appeal in S v B established that a conviction in the Regional Court, when referred to the High Court for sentencing under section 52(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, is treated as a conviction by a superior court. Consequently, section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies, requiring leave to appeal for both conviction and sentence. The High Court's jurisdiction to hear appeals is strictly governed by statute, and there is no automatic right of appeal in these circumstances. The inherent powers of the High Court do not override express statutory requirement…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• High Court Jurisdiction
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Automatic Right Of Appeal
• Superior Court Conviction