South Africa Case Law

Department of Social Development v Non-Profit Organisations Registered (2024/00063)

Department of Social Development v Non-Profit Organisations Registered (2024/00063) [2024] ZAGPJHC 253 (18 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/00063

Judge

S D J Wilson

The application was dismissed because the Department failed to establish a rational factual link between the respondents and any reasonably anticipated unlawful activity. The group cited as the second respondent was incapable of meaningful definition and could not be identified in advance, making it impossible to give proper notice or establish reasonable apprehension of harm. The relief sought was overbroad, encompassing lawful conduct protected by constitutional rights to assemble, demonstrate, and picket, without distinguishing between lawful and unlawful actions. The court found that the…

Source excerpt

• Interdictory Relief
• Right To Assemble
• Overbreadth Of Orders
• Identification Of Parties
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Harm

Ninarich Investments 1 (Pty) Ltd v Those attempting to assume control of and blockading access to 31 Betty Street and Another (2023/043354)

Ninarich Investments 1 (Pty) Ltd v Those attempting to assume control of and blockading access to 31 Betty Street and Another (2023/043354) [2023] ZAGPJHC 530 (22 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/043354

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court dismissed Ninarich’s urgent bid for interim relief over 31 Betty Street, holding that the respondents were not identified with enough specificity and the relief risked an unlawful eviction.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Eviction Proceedings
• Interim Relief
• Identification Of Parties
• Interim-relief
• Identification-of-parties

Metsimaholo Local Municipality v Unlawful Occupiers of and Persons Intending to Unlawfully Occupy the Land and Another (6054/2022)

Metsimaholo Local Municipality v Unlawful Occupiers of and Persons Intending to Unlawfully Occupy the Land and Another (6054/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 146 (26 April 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6054/2022

Judge

N.S. Daniso

The court found that the Municipality had established urgency, as the evidence showed imminent occupation of undeveloped municipal land. The respondents, by opposing the application and acknowledging both current and intended occupation, constituted an ascertainable group for the purposes of the order, even if not individually identified. The Municipality demonstrated that the land was unfit for habitation and not approved for housing, and that unlawful occupation would prejudice both the Municipality's constitutional obligations and those awaiting lawful housing allocation. The requirements…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Interdicts
• Urgency In Application Proceedings
• Right To Housing
• Identification Of Parties
• Municipal Powers

TASWU obo Legodi and Others v Van Kerken NO and Others (JR2881/17)

TASWU obo Legodi and Others v Van Kerken NO and Others (JR2881/17) [2020] ZALCJHB 262; (2021) 42 ILJ 195 (LC) (20 August 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2881/17

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court held that the bargaining council's jurisdiction is determined by the subject matter of the dispute, not by the personal attendance of the employees at conciliation. The panellist's conclusion that failure to appear in person deprived the council of jurisdiction was incorrect and must be set aside. However, the court agreed that the referral was deficient due to the lack of identification of the individual employees and insufficient detail regarding the nature of the dispute. This deficiency rendered the dispute incapable of conciliation, and the panellist was correct to refuse to en…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Conciliation Procedure
• Identification Of Parties
• Unfair Dismissal
• Section 189 Consultation

Mpaka and Others v KSD Local Municipality and Another (3627/2015)

Mpaka and Others v KSD Local Municipality and Another (3627/2015) [2017] ZAECMHC 24 (11 July 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3627/2015

Judge

SM Mbenenge

The court found that the order of 17 November 2011 did not apply to the applicants, as they were neither named nor properly identified as respondents. The procedure adopted by the Department in executing the demolition without a fresh court order violated section 26(3) of the Constitution, which requires judicial oversight before eviction or demolition. The letter from the Department to the Municipality did not constitute an unlawful delegation of power, but merely a request for assistance. The demolished structures were incomplete and unoccupied, making damages a more appropriate remedy than…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Without Court Order
• Section 26 3 Constitution
• Identification Of Parties
• Unlawful Demolition
• Costs Award

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Swanepoel N.O. (20062/2014)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Swanepoel N.O. (20062/2014) [2015] ZASCA 71; 2015 (5) SA 77 (SCA) (22 May 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20062/2014

Judges

Lewis, Mhlantla, Pillay, Schoeman, Dambuza

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the naming of a trust as a party to a contract does not render the contract invalid, provided it is clear that the trustee acted for the trust in concluding the contract. South African law recognizes trusts as legal entities, and contracts may be validly entered into by trustees on behalf of the trust. The identity of the trust and its trustees can be established by reference to the trust deed and extrinsic evidence. The agreements in question were signed by Swanepoel in his capacity as trustee, and the trust was sufficiently identified. The suretyship wa…

Source excerpt

• Trust Contractual Capacity
• Suretyship Enforceability
• Identification Of Parties
• Extrinsic Evidence In Contracts

Scheepers v Strydom (370/90)

Scheepers v Strydom (370/90) [1994] ZASCA 3; [1994] 2 All SA 240 (A) (1 March 1994)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

370/90

Judges

Van Coller, Hoexter, Vivier, Kumleben

The court held that a land-sale contract sufficiently identified the purchaser and was not void under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act.

• Sale Of Land
• Identification Of Parties
• Absolution From The Instance
• Counterclaim
• Formal Requirements For Contracts
• Sale-of-land