South Africa Case Law

Van till Outdoor (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2024/032964)

Van till Outdoor (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2024/032964) [2025] ZAGPJHC 774 (8 August 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/032964

Judge

Snyman AJ

The High Court held that Johannesburg’s Outdoor Advertising By-Laws do not authorise JMPD impoundments, and granted declaratory and interdictory relief.

• Municipal By Laws Enforcement
• Unlawful Impoundment
• Declaratory Relief
• Interdictory Relief
• Doctrine Of Ripeness
• Interpretation Of By Laws

N Wandlamhari Communal Property Association and Another v Mathebula and Others (LanC89/2019B)

N Wandlamhari Communal Property Association and Another v Mathebula and Others (LanC89/2019B) [2025] ZALCC 30 (18 July 2025)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LanC 89/2019B

Judge

Bishop

The Land Court interdicted an urgently called NCPA AGM, finding it was not convened in compliance with clause 15.1.3 of the association constitution.

• Communal Property Association Governance
• Annual General Meeting Procedure
• Interdictory Relief
• Constitutional Compliance
• Beneficiary Verification
• Standing And Authority

Kwende Construction CC v Ditsobotla Local Municipality (604/2024)

Kwende Construction CC v Ditsobotla Local Municipality (604/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 119 (15 July 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

604/2024

Judge

Oosthuizen-Senekal

The court upheld Kwende Construction CC’s counter-application, ordering Ditsobotla Local Municipality to pay the outstanding certified debt plus interest and punitive costs.

• Emergency Procurement
• Municipal Finance Management Act
• Acknowledgment Of Debt
• Certificate Of Completion
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Interdictory Relief

MEC for Health: Gauteng Province and Others v Buhle Waste (Pty) Ltd (338/2024 ; 384/2024)

MEC for Health: Gauteng Province and Others v Buhle Waste (Pty) Ltd (338/2024 ; 384/2024) [2025] ZASCA 102 (15 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

338/2024 & 384/2024

Judges

Mbatha JA, Baartman JA, Steyn AJJA, Tolmay AJJA, Vally AJJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred by setting aside administrative action through a declarator rather than a review under PAJA. The respondent, Buhle Waste, avoided the prescribed review procedure and timeframes, prejudicing the other parties and compromising the public interest in finality of administrative action. The high court granted relief not properly pleaded or canvassed, depriving the appellants of the opportunity to respond with the benefit of the Rule 53 record. The correct procedure for challenging administrative action is a review under PAJA, and declarato…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Tender Review
• Declaratory Relief
• Interdictory Relief
• Pleading Requirements

Technical Systems (Pty) Ltd and Another v RTS Industries and Others (17470/2014)

Technical Systems (Pty) Ltd and Another v RTS Industries and Others (17470/2014) [2025] ZAWCHC 292 (14 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17470/2014

Judge

Nuku

The High Court ordered the respondents to pay party-and-party costs after the merits were settled, finding their abandonment of the plant justified a costs award.

• Costs Award
• Confidential Information
• Copyright Infringement
• Interdictory Relief
• Expert Evidence
• Settlement Of Dispute

Khammissa v Tselana N.O and Others (2025/025127)

Khammissa v Tselana N.O and Others (2025/025127) [2025] ZAGPPHC 702 (4 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025/025127

Judge

Mbongwe

The High Court dismissed an urgent interdict seeking to stop a section 152 insolvency inquiry, finding the applicant lacked standing and the case was an abuse of process.

• Insolvency Act Section 152
• Jurisdiction Of Master
• Locus Standi
• Interdictory Relief
• Abuse Of Process
• Insolvency-law

Dewlal v Cebra Lancet RSA (Pty) Ltd (JS685/24)

Dewlal v Cebra Lancet RSA (Pty) Ltd (JS685/24) [2025] ZALCJHB 236 (18 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS685/24

Judge

W Kruger

The court found that the Respondent's exception was not an irregular step under Rule 57, as the procedural requirements for notice only apply to exceptions based on vagueness and embarrassment, which was not the case here. The Applicant failed to demonstrate any procedural irregularity by the Respondent. On the merits, the Applicant's statement of case did not disclose a cause of action, as it relied solely on a confidentiality clause without specifying the breached terms. The Applicant did not plead the requirements for interdictory relief and sought damages not recognised in South African l…

Source excerpt

• Mutual Separation Agreement
• Confidentiality Clause
• Exception Procedure
• Interdictory Relief
• Damages In Lieu Of Specific Performance

Swimming South Africa v South African Water Polo NPC and Others (2025/040663)

Swimming South Africa v South African Water Polo NPC and Others (2025/040663) [2025] ZAWCHC 249 (18 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2025/040663

Judge

J Cloete

The High Court dismissed Swimming South Africa’s urgent bid to stop South African Water Polo NPC from forming and organising water polo, finding no clear right or unlawful interference.

• Interdictory Relief
• Governance Of Sporting Bodies
• National Federation Recognition
• Freedom Of Association
• Passing Off
• Statutory Rights Under Nsra

Tabletpot Admin (Pty) Ltd v Jolliet and Another (2025/061274)

Tabletpot Admin (Pty) Ltd v Jolliet and Another (2025/061274) [2025] ZAGPJHC 605 (17 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/061274

Judge

Crutchfield

The court found that the applicant had established a clear right to enforce the restraint of trade and confidentiality undertakings, as these were valid contractual terms and the first respondent had breached them by joining a direct competitor. The applicant demonstrated a protectable interest in its confidential information and customer connections, which the first respondent had access to during his employment. The court accepted that the applicant did not need to prove actual harm, only the potential for harm due to the first respondent's new role. However, the court found the original ge…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Interdictory Relief
• Employment Contracts

Motsepe and Others v Motsepe and Another (2025/079559)

Motsepe and Others v Motsepe and Another (2025/079559) [2025] ZALMPPHC 106 (2 June 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

2025/079559

Judge

Bresler

High Court urgent defamation interdict granted over social media posts accusing family members of serious wrongdoing.

• Defamation
• Interdictory Relief
• Dignity And Reputation
• Social Media Publication
• Urgent Application
• Constitutional Rights Infringement