South Africa Case Law

Liberty Fighters Network and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (46591/2021)

Liberty Fighters Network and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (46591/2021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 535 (29 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

46591/2021

Judge

Van Aswegen

The applicants failed to establish a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings, as required by Rule 12. Their interest arises from their broader campaign against banking practices and advocacy for reform in legal representation, not from any legal right affected by the breach of the loan agreement at issue. The third respondent did not raise any complaint regarding legal representation and chose to conduct her own defence. The constitutional issues raised by the applicants were not properly canvassed in the summary judgment proceedings and were not accompanied b…

Source excerpt

• Intervention Application
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Legal Representation
• Rule 12 Uniform Rules
• Section 38 Constitution
• Rule 16a Uniform Rules

Nombewu v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C564/2022)

Nombewu v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C564/2022) [2025] ZALCCT 30 (15 May 2025)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C564/2022

Judge

R Lagrange

The Labour Court set aside a CCMA ruling after finding the commissioner wrongly excluded legal representation and failed to assist the employee adequately.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Legal Representation
• Helping Hand Principle
• Jurisdictional Ruling
• Unfair-dismissal
• Legal-representation

S v Serache and Others (Review) (HC12/2025)

S v Serache and Others (Review) (HC12/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 75; 2025 (2) SACR 61 (NWM) (6 May 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC12/2025

Judges

Reddy, Morgan, Titus

The majority of the Court held that the absence of a Fidelity Fund Certificate by the accused's legal representative does not constitute a gross irregularity or render the criminal proceedings a nullity. The legislative intent behind section 84(1) of the Legal Practice Act is to protect the public from financial misconduct, not to regulate the competence of legal practitioners in court. Disciplinary and criminal sanctions are the appropriate consequences for non-compliance, not the invalidation of judicial proceedings. There was no evidence that the accused's right to a fair trial was prejudi…

Source excerpt

• Legal Representation
• Fidelity Fund Certificate
• Fair Trial Rights
• Gross Irregularity
• Statutory Interpretation

Independent Development Trust v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another (2025/031003)

Independent Development Trust v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another (2025/031003) [2025] ZALCJHB 114 (16 March 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/031003

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court dismissed an urgent bid to stop a CCMA arbitration, finding the urgency was self-created and the applicant had other remedies in due course.

• Urgent Interdict
• Legal Representation
• Review Of Arbitration Ruling
• Self Created Urgency
• Urgent-interdict
• Ccma-arbitration

Mudolo and Others (CC/07/2023)

Mudolo and Others (CC/07/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 59 (24 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC07/2023

Judge

M J Mosopa

The High Court dismissed accused 1 and 2’s section 342A application, finding their postponement bid was a tactical delay and not a bona fide funding issue.

• Unreasonable Delay
• Section 342a Application
• Right To Fair Trial
• Legal Representation
• Postponement
• Prejudice To State

Oostland Boerdery CC v Department of Employment and Labour Free State and Others (2024/112730)

Oostland Boerdery CC v Department of Employment and Labour Free State and Others (2024/112730) [2024] ZALCJHB 441 (22 October 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2024/112730

Judge

R Itzkin

The Labour Court ordered the CCMA commissioner to furnish written reasons for verbal rulings, but refused to stay pending arbitration as premature.

• Written Reasons
• Interlocutory Rulings
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Review Application
• Legal Representation
• Jurisdiction Of Commissioner

S v Gqesha (217810)

S v Gqesha (217810) [2024] ZAECMHC 15 (9 May 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

217810

Judges

H. Zilwa, L. Rusi

High Court review set aside an assault conviction and six-month sentence after finding the guilty plea was wrongly accepted and the magistrate used degrading language.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Legal Representation
• Section 112 1 B Procedure
• Section 113 Plea Correction
• Judicial Conduct
• Criminal-procedure

Mokone and Another v S (A15/2022)

Mokone and Another v S (A15/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 418; 2024 (2) SACR 175 (GP) (6 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A15/2022

Judges

S. Potterill, N. Davis, D. Mahosi

The court found that a conflict of interest arose when both appellants were represented by the same legal practitioner, and appellant 1 implicated appellant 2 in his testimony. This conflict rendered appellant 2's representation illusory, as his version was not put to the state witness or to appellant 1, and basic steps such as cross-examination were not taken. The irregularity resulted in a failure of justice and an unfair trial for appellant 2, requiring his convictions and sentences to be set aside. The conflict did not materially prejudice appellant 1, as his version was put to the state…

Source excerpt

• Conflict Of Interest
• Legal Representation
• Fair Trial Rights
• Rape
• Section 35 Constitution
• Section 322 Criminal Procedure Act

Molokela v S (CA 53/2019)

Molokela v S (CA 53/2019) [2024] ZANWHC 115 (16 April 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 53/2019

Judges

N G Laubscher, FMM Reid

The High Court dismissed an appeal against rape conviction and life sentence, finding the trial court correctly relied on admissions, medical evidence, and no substantial and compelling circumstances.

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Legal Representation
• Appeal Principles
• Grievous Bodily Harm

Thuthukani Land Claim Committee Claimants (LCC01/2011)

Thuthukani Land Claim Committee Claimants (LCC01/2011) [2024] ZALCC 8 (28 February 2024)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC01/2011

Judge

Ncube

The Land Claims Court refused to order claimants’ attorneys to pay wasted costs after adjournments, finding no gross negligence, dishonesty, or exceptional circumstances.

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Adjournment
• Legal Representation
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Costs-de-bonis-propriis