South Africa Case Law

Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Tshwane v National Council of Society for Prevention of Cruelty (24/125547)

Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Tshwane v National Council of Society for Prevention of Cruelty (24/125547) [2025] ZAGPJHC 19 (14 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

24/125547

Judge

Wentzel AJ

The High Court ordered the NSPCA to restore access, records and email to Tshwane SPCA directors, finding their exclusion blocked audit compliance and oversight.

• Fiduciary Duties Of Directors
• Companies Act Section 76
• Oversight And Access Rights
• Statutory Management Takeover
• Audited Financial Statements
• Interdict Relief

B & B Plumbing and Building Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Govender and Others (D12620/2023)

B & B Plumbing and Building Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Govender and Others (D12620/2023) [2023] ZAKZDHC 91 (30 November 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D12620/2023

Judge

Shapiro AJ

The court found that the restraint of trade clauses in the employment contracts were valid and binding on the first to third respondents. The respondents were aware of the restraints and had previously signed similar covenants. The applicant established protectable interests in its customer connections and confidential information, though not in its supplier relationships. The respondents' conduct in joining a competitor and offering undertakings only in the answering affidavit indicated a lack of good faith. The court held that tailored enforcement of the restraint, prohibiting the responden…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Enforceability Of Employment Contracts
• Protectable Interests
• Customer Connections
• Confidential Information
• Interdict Relief

Seale and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (2023/078684)

Seale and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (2023/078684) [2023] ZAGPPHC 754 (25 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/078684

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The court found that the Applicants were unlawfully evicted and their homes demolished by the Respondents without a valid court order, in direct contravention of section 26(3) of the Constitution and PIE. The Respondents' reliance on a 2017 interdict against unidentified persons could not justify ongoing evictions against the present, identified Applicants. The evidence, including photographs, videos, and in loco inspection, established that the Applicants had peaceful and undisturbed possession, and the Respondents' actions amounted to spoliation. The Applicants are entitled to restoration o…

Source excerpt

• Right To Housing
• Unlawful Eviction
• Mandament Van Spolie
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Constitutional Damages
• Interdict Relief

M.N.P v C.M.P and Another (2021/56132)

M.N.P v C.M.P and Another (2021/56132) [2023] ZAGPJHC 942 (18 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/56132

Judge

MIA

The court granted interim relief in an estate dispute, finding two customary marriages to the deceased and directing reconsideration of executor appointments.

• Customary Marriage
• Administration Of Estates Act
• Executor Removal
• Gender Equality In Estates
• Spousal Share
• Interdict Relief

Winnie Mabaso Foundation v CCMA and Others (J293/21)

Winnie Mabaso Foundation v CCMA and Others (J293/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 46 (24 March 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J293/21

Judge

G. N. Moshoana

The Labour Court dismissed an urgent review of a CCMA jurisdictional ruling, holding that defective service did not oust jurisdiction and that section 158(1B) barred intervention.

• Jurisdictional Ruling
• Defective Service
• Stay Of Arbitration
• Interdict Relief
• Section 158 1b Lra
• Ccma-jurisdiction

Rex and Others v Mnister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (22663/2018)

Rex and Others v Mnister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (22663/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 348 (9 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22663/2018

Judge

N Davis

The court found that Marievale residents were evicted without a court order and granted interim relief allowing occupation or alternative accommodation, plus interdictory protection.

• Eviction Without Court Order
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Unlawful Occupation
• Military Base Residence
• Interdict Relief
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act

Quantum Leap Investments 639 (PTY) LTD and Another v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others (391/2017)

Quantum Leap Investments 639 (PTY) LTD and Another v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others (391/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 816 (20 December 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

391/2017

Judge

Legodi JP

The High Court dismissed a constitutional challenge to a National Water Act directive, holding that an appeal did not suspend the directive and no rights under sections 25, 33 or 34 were infringed.

• National Water Act
• Constitutional Review
• Just Administrative Action
• Property Rights
• Internal Remedies
• Interdict Relief

Sunsmart Products (Pty) Ltd v Flag and Flagpole Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a National Flag (97/10535, 99/3281, 7385/2004)

Sunsmart Products (Pty) Ltd v Flag and Flagpole Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a National Flag (97/10535, 99/3281, 7385/2004) [2005] ZACCP 2; 2005 BIP 31 (CP) (7 November 2005)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

97/10535, 99/3281, 7385/2004

Judge

B.R. Southwood

The court held that the defendant did not infringe patent 97/10535, but the raised design claim failed for lack of novelty. The agreed order in patent 99/3281 was granted.

• Patent Infringement
• Design Registration
• Novelty Requirement
• Inventive Step
• Aesthetic Designs
• Interdict Relief

Hollywood Curl (Pty) Ltd. and Another v Twins Products (Pty) Ltd. (282/87)

Hollywood Curl (Pty) Ltd. and Another v Twins Products (Pty) Ltd. (282/87) [1988] ZASCA 133; [1989] 1 All SA 377 (A) (30 September 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

282/87

Judges

Corbett, Smalberger, Milne, Kumleben, Nicholas

The court held that the appellant's 'Hollywood Curl' mark did not infringe the respondent's registered trade marks, as the only common element was the word 'Hollywood', which was disclaimed in one registration and insufficiently similar in the other. The series principle was found inapplicable to infringement actions involving only two diverse registered marks. However, the court found that the respondent had established a substantial reputation and goodwill in the 'Hollywood' marks through extensive use and advertising in the cosmetics market. The appellant's use of 'Hollywood Curl' was like…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Distinctiveness
• Series Principle
• Goodwill
• Interdict Relief