South Africa Case Law

Public Servants Association of South Africa and Others v Government Employers Pension Fund and Others (57703/16)

Public Servants Association of South Africa and Others v Government Employers Pension Fund and Others (57703/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 199 (25 May 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

57703/16

Judge

Van der Westhuizen

The court held that consultation under GEPF Rule 14.4.2 did not require agreement or prior consultation, and dismissed the review about actuarial factor changes.

• Consultation Requirements
• Government Employees Pension Law
• Judicial Review
• Fiduciary Duties
• Interpretation Of Rules
• Judicial-review

Waterfall Hills Residents Association NPC v Jordaan and Another (A3140/2018)

Waterfall Hills Residents Association NPC v Jordaan and Another (A3140/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 669 (12 November 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3140/2018

Judges

Windell, C Reyneke

The court found that the adjudicator erred in granting relief against the Association, as no relief was sought against it. The appeal was upheld on that basis. Regarding the cross appeal, condonation for late filing was granted as the interests of justice required that the first respondent not be left without a remedy due to procedural error. On the merits, the court held that the koi pond was not a 'small water feature' as contemplated by the Landscaping Rules and its installation was therefore contrary to those rules. Furthermore, the court accepted the adjudicator's factual finding that th…

Source excerpt

• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Nuisance
• Interpretation Of Rules
• Condonation
• Adjudicator Award

Hoban v ABSA Bank Ltd t/a United Bank and Others (275/1997)

Hoban v ABSA Bank Ltd t/a United Bank and Others (275/1997) [1999] ZASCA 12; [1999] 2 All SA 483 (A) (19 March 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

275/1997

Judges

Mahomed, Howie, Olivier, Farlam, Madlanga

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the term 'days' in Rule 46(7)(c) of the Uniform Rules, as it read prior to the 1996 amendment, must be interpreted as 'court days' in accordance with the definition in Rule 1. The Court found that Rule 46 deals with procedural matters connected to litigation, and there is no contextual or legislative basis to depart from the defined meaning. Applying the statutory definition does not result in injustice, incongruity, or absurdity. Therefore, the advertisements for the sale in execution were published within the prescribed period, and the requirements of R…

Source excerpt

• Sale In Execution
• Interpretation Of Rules
• Computation Of Time
• Rule 46 Uniform Rules
• Advertisement Requirements