South Africa Case Law

Mabundla v Bollore Logistics (J1038/23)

Mabundla v Bollore Logistics (J1038/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 318 (10 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1038/23

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court found that the jurisdictional requirements for making the settlement agreement an order of court under section 158(1)(c) and 158(1A) of the LRA were satisfied. However, the respondent had already complied with the terms of the agreement by paying the applicant the full amount of R150,000.00, as evidenced by proof of payment and the applicant's own concession. As a result, granting the application would have no practical effect, as the agreement had been fully performed. The applicant's claim for additional money was irrelevant to the present application and should be pursued…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Section 158 1 C Lra
• Jurisdictional Preconditions
• Enforcement Of Settlement
• Practical Effect
• Proof Of Payment

Square Root Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and Others (D2068/2022)

Square Root Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and Others (D2068/2022) [2022] ZAKZDHC 11 (28 February 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D2068/2022

Judge

Lopes

The court held that the applicant failed to comply with the peremptory notice requirements of section 96 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964. SARS acted in pursuance of the Act when attaching the vehicles, regardless of whether the vehicles belonged to the applicant or the tax-debtors. The applicant's argument that unlawful or mistaken attachment fell outside the scope of the Act was rejected. The court found that section 96 is a jurisdictional precondition, and absent compliance, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application. The urgency claimed by the applicant was not justified, and…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act Section 96
• Urgent Application Requirements
• Jurisdictional Preconditions
• Vindicatory Relief

Barnard and Other In re: Registrar of Medical Schemes v Medshield Medical Scheme (56193/12)

Barnard and Other In re: Registrar of Medical Schemes v Medshield Medical Scheme (56193/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 184 (5 July 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56193/12

Judge

Murphy

The High Court granted leave to appeal against an order confirming a rule nisi and appointing a curator to manage a medical scheme, and revived the prior orders pending appeal.

• Curatorship
• Leave To Appeal
• Rule Nisi
• Jurisdictional Preconditions
• Leave-to-appeal
• Rule-nisi

Ansac and Another v Botash and Others (1)

Ansac and Another v Botash and Others (1) [2001] ZACT 10 (27 March 2001)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

49/CR/Apr00

Judges

N. Manoim, D. Terblanche, D. Lewis

The Competition Tribunal dismissed Ansac’s jurisdictional and particularity objections, allowed amendments, and held section 4(1)(b) does not permit an efficiency defence.

• Complaint Referral Procedure
• Jurisdictional Preconditions
• Retrospectivity
• Particularity Of Pleadings
• Efficiency Defence
• Section 4 1 B Interpretation