South Africa Case Law

Gcora and Another v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality and Another (1414/2016 ; 992/2016)

Gcora and Another v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality and Another (1414/2016 ; 992/2016) [2025] ZAECQBHC 10 (1 April 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1414/2016 ; 992/2016

Judge

J W Eksteen

The court held that the applicants, having been declared vexatious litigants, bore the evidential burden to demonstrate bona fide claims with prima facie merit in their requests for leave to institute proceedings. Both requests were unsupported by affidavit and failed to identify a clear cause of action or relief sought. The proposed interdict proceedings sought to challenge cost orders and judgments that had reached finality, which is impermissible. The enforcement proceedings were based on mediation outcomes, but the applicants had no contractual nexus with the municipality or the MEC, and…

Source excerpt

• Vexatious Litigation
• Leave To Institute Proceedings
• Public Protector Remedial Action
• Municipal Tender Disputes
• Prescription Of Claims
• Joinder And Locus Standi

Curro Heights Properties (Pty) Ltd v Nomic 151 (Pty) Ltd and Others (22696/2024)

Curro Heights Properties (Pty) Ltd v Nomic 151 (Pty) Ltd and Others (22696/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 388 (21 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

22696/2024

Judge

R K Parker

Urgent business rescue application struck from the roll because the applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, had not obtained leave to sue.

• Business Rescue
• Vexatious Litigation
• Urgent Application Procedure
• Leave To Institute Proceedings
• Business-rescue
• Vexatious-litigation

Van Der Merwe v South African Legal Practice Council and Another (19591/2022)

Van Der Merwe v South African Legal Practice Council and Another (19591/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 341 (29 May 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19591/2022

Judges

Saldanha, Gamble, Bremridge

The High Court struck the application from the roll because the applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, had not obtained leave to proceed with the case.

• Vexatious Litigation
• Leave To Institute Proceedings
• Legal Practitioners Right Of Audience
• Vexatious-litigation
• Leave-to-institute-proceedings
• Strike-from-the-roll

Emam v Carlson (20740/2022)

Emam v Carlson (20740/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 68 (11 April 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20740/2022

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The High Court declared the respondent a vexatious litigant after finding a persistent pattern of meritless proceedings against the applicant and others.

• Vexatious Litigation
• Vexatious Proceedings Act
• Abuse Of Process
• Costs Award
• Leave To Institute Proceedings
• Vexatious-litigation

M T Makhubele Enterprises CC and Others v Business Partners Limited and Others

M T Makhubele Enterprises CC and Others v Business Partners Limited and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 166; 11789/19 (6 March 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

11789/19

Judge

P J Vermeulen

The court found that the applicants have persistently and without reasonable ground instituted a multiplicity of legal proceedings against the first respondent, including repeated applications for rescission, leave to appeal, urgent interdicts, and other interlocutory relief, all on substantially the same grounds. This conduct has been recognised by multiple judges as abusive and vexatious. The requirements of section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act were met. The constitutional challenge to the Act was rejected, as the limitation on access to courts is reasonable and justifiable to p…

Source excerpt

• Vexatious Litigation
• Vexatious Proceedings Act
• Abuse Of Process
• Costs Orders
• Leave To Institute Proceedings

Member of the Executive Council for Health: North West Province v Witbooi (Leave to Appeal) (M551/2021)

Member of the Executive Council for Health: North West Province v Witbooi (Leave to Appeal) (M551/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 133 (26 January 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M551/2021

Judge

J.T. Djaje

The High Court dismissed leave to appeal against condonation and leave granted under the Institution of Legal Proceedings Act, with costs.

• Condonation
• Leave To Institute Proceedings
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State
• Appealability
• Good Cause
• Leave-to-appeal

Kampel v Sneech (26822/2020)

Kampel v Sneech (26822/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 764 (29 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26822/2020

Judge

Ally

The High Court set aside a combined summons as an irregular step, holding the respondent needed leave under a vexatious litigant order before suing.

• Vexatious Litigant Order
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Leave To Institute Proceedings
• Rule-30
• Vexatious-litigant

Absa Bank Limited v Mosomane and Others (37737/2020)

Absa Bank Limited v Mosomane and Others (37737/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 23 (18 January 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37737/2020

Judge

M Munzhelele

The court found that the debt owed to the applicant was secured by a registered mortgage bond, and therefore, the applicable prescription period is thirty years under section 11(a)(i) of the Prescription Act. The respondents' argument that the debt prescribed after three years was rejected as legally flawed. The court distinguished the cited cases, noting that in this matter, the debt was directly secured by a mortgage bond and not by suretyship or an unsecured loan. The court held that regardless of when the debt became due, the thirty-year prescription period had not lapsed. Consequently, t…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Mortgage Bond Prescription
• Leave To Institute Proceedings
• Costs Order

S.V.M v S and Others (19275/20)

S.V.M v S and Others (19275/20) [2021] ZAWCHC 260; 2022 (1) SACR 313 (WCC) (7 December 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19275/20

Judge

Thulare

The High Court declined leave for further proceedings and ordered steps under the Mental Health Care Act to assess the plaintiff's capacity.

• Vexatious Litigation
• Mental Health Observation
• Leave To Institute Proceedings
• Abuse Of Process
• Vexatious-litigation
• Leave-to-institute-proceedings

Nash and Others v Cadac Pension Fund (In Curatorship) (Registration Number: 12/8/0020425) and Others (545/2020)

Nash and Others v Cadac Pension Fund (In Curatorship) (Registration Number: 12/8/0020425) and Others (545/2020) [2021] ZASCA 144 (11 October 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

545/2020

Judges

Dambuza, Makgoka, Mbatha, Ledwaba, Unterhalter

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld an interim interdict protecting pension contributions and held that leave to institute proceedings could be sought within the same application.

• Interim Interdict
• Leave To Institute Proceedings
• Intervention Of Parties
• Pension Fund Administration
• Vexatious Litigation
• Interim-interdict