South Africa Case Law

National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications v Cornelius and Others (JR2789/18)

National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications v Cornelius and Others (JR2789/18) [2025] ZALCJHB 191 (10 April 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2789/18

Judge

Kirstein

The Labour Court found that the arbitrator failed to ensure a fair process by not requiring oral evidence or a properly formulated stated case, despite identifying evidentiary gaps and procedural concerns. The arbitrator's reliance solely on a common bundle of documents, without oral testimony or clarity on disputed facts, resulted in a material irregularity and a misconception of the nature of the enquiry. The arbitrator's determination regarding legal professional privilege and the admissibility of the note was made without sufficient evidence, and the procedural approach adopted rendered t…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Procedural Fairness
• Remittal For Fresh Arbitration

Director Public Prosecutions Limpopo Division v Grobler and Others (CC01/2024)

Director Public Prosecutions Limpopo Division v Grobler and Others (CC01/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 204; 2025 (1) SACR 357 (LP) (13 December 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

CC01/2024

Judge

E M Makgoba

The court dismissed an application to bar an attorney from representing accused persons in a criminal trial, finding no proper basis to treat him as a compellable State witness.

• Conflict Of Interest
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Right To Legal Representation
• Section 35 Constitution
• Section 201 Criminal Procedure Act
• Criminal-procedure

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others [2024] ZASCA 166; 2025 (2) SA 408 (SCA) (4 December 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

862/2022

Judges

Zondi, Schippers, Hughes, Meyer, Tlaletsi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the forensic investigation report was not protected by legal professional privilege or litigation privilege under section 67 of PAIA, as its dominant purpose was to investigate accounting irregularities and enable Steinhoff to produce financial statements, not to obtain legal advice or prepare for litigation. The evidence did not support the assertion that litigation was pending or contemplated at the time of commissioning the report. Even if privilege existed, it was waived by Steinhoff's publication of the overview, which disclosed the substance and key…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Public Interest Override
• Corporate Fraud
• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Waiver Of Privilege

Riverland Holdings Limited v ENRC Mozambique Limitada (42562/2015)

Riverland Holdings Limited v ENRC Mozambique Limitada (42562/2015) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1308 (10 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42562/2015

Judge

Nico van der Walt

The High Court enforced an oral services agreement, rejected ENRC’s factual disputes, and ordered payment of USD 1,827,200.65 plus interest.

• Specific Performance
• Oral Contracts
• Proof Of Agency
• Hearsay Evidence
• Authentication Of Documents
• Legal Professional Privilege

Netcare Medical Scheme v Council for Medical Schemes and Another (2023-006058)

Netcare Medical Scheme v Council for Medical Schemes and Another (2023-006058) [2024] ZAGPPHC 247 (7 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-006058

Judge

Nyathi

The court found that the respondents, by referring to and summarizing the legal opinion in their answering affidavit, acted in a manner that objectively constitutes an implied waiver of privilege. Unlike in Contango, where privilege was asserted and no reliance was placed on the contents of the opinions, the respondents here did not assert privilege in their affidavit and relied on the legal opinion to justify their actions, including the decision to seek curatorship. The legal opinion was integral to the respondents' case and the relief sought. The court held that the shield of privilege was…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Waiver Of Privilege
• Medical Schemes Act
• Curatorship

Savoi and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (CCT 146/22)

Savoi and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (CCT 146/22) [2023] ZACC 38; 2024 (1) SACR 343 (CC); 2024 (5) BCLR 653 (CC) (28 November 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 146/22

Judges

Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Makgoka, Mathopo, Potterill, Rogers, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that the appropriate procedure for considering documents allegedly protected by legal professional privilege in the context of a permanent stay application is an in camera review. This strikes a balance between the constitutional principles of open justice and legal professional privilege. The Court found that requiring proof of privilege at the interlocutory stage prejudges a central issue and is not necessary for determining the procedure. The in camera process does not entail permanent secrecy, as records can be made public if privilege is not established. The…

Source excerpt

• Legal Professional Privilege
• Open Justice
• In Camera Review
• Superior Courts Act Section 32
• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution

Ndala v Baloyi and Another

Ndala v Baloyi and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 203; 5834/2022 (9 March 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

5834/2022

Judge

Mncube

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for compelling further discovery under Rule 35(7). The second respondent had complied with the Rule 35(1) and Rule 35(3) notices by filing discovery affidavits and raising valid defences of relevance and non-existence of the requested documents. The applicant did not provide evidence of the existence of the documents sought, nor did she demonstrate falsehood in the respondent's affidavits. The application was further flawed by the inclusion of requests for documents not specified in the original Rule 35(3) notice. The court emphasiz…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 Uniform Rules
• Vicarious Liability
• Legal Professional Privilege

White Oak Trade & Specialty Finance Cayman LLC v Santam Structured Insurance Limited and Others (13311/2020)

White Oak Trade & Specialty Finance Cayman LLC v Santam Structured Insurance Limited and Others (13311/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 148 (22 February 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13311/2020

Judge

L R Adams

The court held that the insurance documents sought by the plaintiff are relevant to the pleaded issues, particularly regarding the authority of the third defendant and the relationships between the defendants. The defendants failed to establish that these documents are privileged, as they were not created in contemplation of litigation nor for submission to legal advisers. The FAIS compliance documents are also relevant, given the statutory duties pleaded, and the requests were not overly broad. Attorney instruction letters predating any mandate or litigation are not privileged and must be di…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Insurance Contracts
• Fais Act Compliance
• Authority Of Agents
• Estoppel

WK Construction (Pty) Ltd v Brown (25092/2014)

WK Construction (Pty) Ltd v Brown (25092/2014) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1111 (31 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

25092/2014

Judge

A Friedman

The court dismissed an application to compel discovery of attorney consultation notes, holding they were protected by legal advice privilege.

• Legal Professional Privilege
• Discovery Procedure
• Director Fiduciary Duties
• Legal Advice Privilege
• Legal-professional-privilege
• Discovery

Van Rooyen N.O and Another v Mokwena N.O and Another (3797/2022)

Van Rooyen N.O and Another v Mokwena N.O and Another (3797/2022) [2022] ZALMPPHC 43; [2022] 4 All SA 274 (LP) (18 July 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

3797/2022

Judge

Makgoba JP

The court found that the evidence from the section 417 and 418 enquiry, relied upon by the applicants, is inadmissible against the Trust as it constitutes hearsay and was not confirmed by the witnesses in these proceedings. The applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for admission of hearsay evidence under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as the evidence was incomplete, untested, and prejudicial to the respondents. The court further held that the applicants did not establish their locus standi as creditors, as the alleged indebtedness of the Trust is bona fide dispu…

Source excerpt

• Sequestration Proceedings
• Piercing Of Trust Veneer
• Hearsay Evidence
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Bona Fide Dispute Of Debt