South Africa Case Law

Sibiya and Others v Road Accident Fund (1067/2022)

Sibiya and Others v Road Accident Fund (1067/2022) [2023] ZASCA 171 (5 December 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1067/2022

Judges

Mbatha, Carelse, Hughes, Koen, Chetty

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the high court acted irregularly by making orders in chambers without affording the appellants an opportunity to be heard, in breach of the audi alteram partem rule and procedural fairness. The referral under rule 70(5A)(d)(ii) was not intended for the determination of fee agreements, and there was no evidence of misbehaviour warranting such referral. The high court's orders were made without jurisdiction and in violation of fundamental principles of judicial process. As a result, the appeal was upheld, the high court's orders were set aside, and the ref…

Source excerpt

• Contingency Fees Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Taxation Of Costs
• Judicial Restraint

Dale v Rian Du Plessis Attorney & Conveyancer and Others (38406/2020)

Dale v Rian Du Plessis Attorney & Conveyancer and Others (38406/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 452 (1 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38406/2020

Judge

Bam

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, holding there was no reasonable prospect of success and that Rule 63 non-compliance was properly raised.

• Leave To Appeal
• Uniform Rule 63
• Judicial Restraint
• Prospects Of Success
• Leave-to-appeal
• Uniform-rule-63

Fischer and Another v Ramahlele and Others (203/2014)

Fischer and Another v Ramahlele and Others (203/2014) [2014] ZASCA 88; 2014 (4) SA 614 (SCA); [2014] 3 All SA 395 (SCA) (4 June 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

203/2014

Judges

Mpati, Theron, Wallis, Hancke, Swain

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred by deciding the matter on legal points not emerging from the papers and not raised by the parties, and by failing to hear oral evidence as previously ordered. The central factual dispute was whether the demolished structures were occupied and constituted homes of the counter applicants. The parties had agreed to resolve this dispute by oral evidence, and the High Court was not entitled to decide the case on alternative legal grounds. The court emphasized that judicial restraint is required and that courts must adjudicate only the issu…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Section 26 Constitution
• Oral Evidence Dispute
• Judicial Restraint
• Land Invasion

Emfuleni Local Municipality v Builders Advancement Services CC and Others (2009/51258)

Emfuleni Local Municipality v Builders Advancement Services CC and Others (2009/51258) [2010] ZAGPJHC 27; 2010 (4) SA 133 (GSJ) (28 April 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2009/51258

Judge

N.P. Willis

The court declined to grant an immediate eviction order due to procedural irregularities and the complexity of the issues, including the respondents' failure to file proper answering affidavits and the sensitivity of mass eviction from state-owned land. Recognizing the need for clarity and fairness, the court postponed the application sine die, ordered the applicant to provide specified documents, and granted respondents a final opportunity to file proper affidavits. The matter was referred to the Deputy Judge President for the appointment of a full bench, given its socio-economic significanc…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Occupation
• Eviction Proceedings
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Judicial Restraint
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Allocation Of Resources