South Africa Case Law

Road Accident Fund and Others v Hlatshwayo and Others (724/2023; 724B/2023)

Road Accident Fund and Others v Hlatshwayo and Others (724/2023; 724B/2023) [2025] ZASCA 17; [2025] 2 All SA 333 (SCA) (5 March 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

724/2023; 724B/2023

Judges

Mocumie, Hughes, Smith, Dolamo, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the full court was competent to inquire into costs occasioned by late settlement under its inherent powers and relevant practice directives. However, it was improper to order costs de boniis propriis against the CEO and Board in the absence of evidence of malice or bad faith, as required by section 15(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The Board was not joined to the proceedings and was not afforded an opportunity to be heard, rendering any costs order against it procedurally unfair. The CEO's conduct did not meet the threshold for personal liability. The…

Source excerpt

• Costs De Boniis Propriis
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Joinder
• Judicial Case Management
• Settlement On Trial Day

Mabuse and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (21/59508)

Mabuse and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (21/59508) [2024] ZAGPJHC 345; 2024 (2) SACR 81 (GJ) (12 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/59508

Judge

S D J Wilson

High Court case on delayed parole processing for five life-sentence prisoners, with judicial case management leading to release or a reasoned refusal and dismissal as moot.

• Parole Review
• Unreasonable Delay
• Mootness
• Victim Offender Dialogue
• Judicial Case Management
• Parole-review

Zitha N.O and Others v Smith N.O and Others (A61/2023; 1726/2021)

Zitha N.O and Others v Smith N.O and Others (A61/2023; 1726/2021) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 22 (25 March 2024)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A61/2023; 1726/2021

Judges

Mashile, Ratshibvumo, Bhengu

The Full Court found that the Court a quo did not misdirect itself in refusing the application for postponement and condonation. The appellants failed to comply with the practice directive and did not provide the necessary information to justify postponement, such as a reasonable explanation for the delay, details of prejudice, or prospects of success in the main application. The interlocutory application under Rule 35(12) was not a valid ground for postponement, as the respondents had replied to the notice and the requested documents were not referred to in the founding affidavit. The Court…

Source excerpt

• Postponement
• Condonation
• Judicial Case Management
• Rule 35 Discovery
• Fair Trial Rights

Kajee v Special Investigations Unit and Others (GP22/2021; GP/09/2019)

Kajee v Special Investigations Unit and Others (GP22/2021; GP/09/2019) [2023] ZAST 16 (20 November 2023)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP22/2021

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Special Tribunal dismissed an irregular-step challenge and granted consolidation of two SIU actions, holding the case management directives were binding and costs should follow the cause.

• Consolidation Of Actions
• Irregular Proceedings
• Judicial Case Management
• Punitive Costs
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Constitutional Right To Fair Hearing

Nxumalo obo Minor and Others v Road Accident Fund (3207/2020; 4751/2021; 4752/2021)

Nxumalo obo Minor and Others v Road Accident Fund (3207/2020; 4751/2021; 4752/2021) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 3 (24 January 2023)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3207/2020; 4751/2021; 4752/2021

Judge

Legodi JP

The court held that the Road Accident Fund's practice of making payments upon settlement without a court order, where contingency fee agreements are in place and the matter is pending before court, is unlawful and contravenes section 4(3) of the Contingency Fees Act. The Fund is required to ensure strict compliance with the law and cannot shift responsibility to legal practitioners. The management failures of the Fund, including lack of proper systems and policies, resulted in late settlements and unnecessary litigation costs. The Fund's failure to participate in pre-trial and judicial case m…

Source excerpt

• Contingency Fees Act
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Settlement Without Court Order
• Punitive Costs
• Judicial Case Management

Special Investigation Unit (SIU) and Others v Lekabe (GP09/2019)

Special Investigation Unit (SIU) and Others v Lekabe (GP09/2019) [2021] ZAST 8 (23 August 2021)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP09/2019

Judge

T. Siwendu

The Special Tribunal held that a notice of bar under Tribunal rule 13(7) could not be used against an exception, and dismissed the defendant’s application with costs.

• Special Tribunals Act
• Exception Procedure
• Judicial Case Management
• Application Of Uniform Rules
• Special-tribunals-act
• Exception-procedure

Moloi v Minister of Police and Another (2000/2020)

Moloi v Minister of Police and Another (2000/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 100 (22 April 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2000/2020

Judge

Daffue

The High Court dismissed a Rule 30A application by the defendants, finding it procedurally irregular and unsupported, and awarded attorney-and-client costs.

• Rule 30 Irregular Steps
• Rule 30a Striking Out
• Rule 41a Mediation Notice
• Judicial Case Management
• Costs Orders
• Rule-30a

Twins Professional Communications CC v Gold Brands Investments Lyd and Others (85540/17)

Twins Professional Communications CC v Gold Brands Investments Lyd and Others (85540/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC 304 (9 June 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

85540/17

Judge

NV Khumalo

The court refused to strike out a defence under Rule 30A, finding the applicant had not first sought a compliance order and the respondents’ conduct was not gross enough.

• Rule 30a Striking Out
• Rule 35 Discovery
• Judicial Case Management
• Failure To Comply With Court Directive
• Costs Orders
• Rule-30a

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others v Paint and Ladders (Pty) Ltd and Another (JA74/16)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others v Paint and Ladders (Pty) Ltd and Another (JA74/16) [2017] ZALAC 41; (2017) 38 ILJ 2285 (LAC); [2017] 11 BLLR 1105 (LAC) (28 June 2017)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA74/16

Judges

Tlaletsi, Landman, Phatshoane

The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellants failed to prosecute their claim with the required diligence, resulting in a delay of approximately 15 years. The explanation for the delay was inadequate, and the appellants did not take reasonable steps to advance their case or trace the lost court file. The respondents suffered prejudice due to the unavailability and faded memories of key witnesses. The Labour Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the claim, as the interests of justice and the statutory obligation for expeditious resolution of labour disputes were undermined…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Delay In Prosecution
• Judicial Case Management
• Abuse Of Process
• Access To Courts