South Africa Case Law

NPE Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mkhonto and Others (51/2023)

NPE Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mkhonto and Others (51/2023) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 26 (9 April 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

51/2023

Judges

Shai AJ, Ratshibvumo DJP

The court held that while a court may raise jurisdictional issues mero motu, the Magistrate's Court erred in determining its lack of jurisdiction by considering the total value of the construction project rather than the value of the relief sought, which is the cost of abating the unlawful activities. The correct approach, as established in Botha v Andrade, is to assess jurisdiction based on the value of the abatement, and the onus to prove that the matter exceeds the jurisdictional limit rests with the respondents. The respondents failed to provide such evidence. The court a quo's reliance o…

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Interdicts
• Section 29 Magistrates Court Act
• Section 30 Magistrates Court Act

H.G.W v M.W (nee B[...]) (RCC/MOS:84/23; A207/2024)

H.G.W v M.W (nee B[...]) (RCC/MOS:84/23; A207/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 140 (26 March 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

RCC/MOS:84/23; A207/2024

Judges

P. S. Van Zyl, J. Lekhuleni

The appeal was upheld because the Mossel Bay Regional Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the divorce action. The respondent failed to plead or prove that she or the appellant was domiciled or ordinarily resident within the court's jurisdiction at the time of institution of the action. The regional court erred by inferring jurisdiction from insufficient pleadings and by considering material not forming part of the pleadings or evidence, such as the Family Advocate's report. Jurisdiction in divorce actions must be established by clear allegations and supporting evidence in the pleadings, a…

Source excerpt

• Divorce Jurisdiction
• Domicile
• Special Plea
• Pleadings
• Divorce Act
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction

Bridge Debt (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mothibi (CA&R34/23)

Bridge Debt (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mothibi (CA&R34/23) [2025] ZANCHC 24 (14 March 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R34/23

Judges

Mamosebo, Nxumalo

The appeal court found that the magistrate correctly rescinded the judgment and emoluments attachment order as the Kimberley court lacked jurisdiction, given the respondent's residence and employment in Johannesburg and the consent to jurisdiction specifying Pretoria. The court held that all benefits obtained by Bridge Debt under the void judgment are void ab initio and restitution must be effected. However, the appellant, Flemix & Associates Incorporated Attorneys, did not receive rescindable benefits and cannot be held jointly and severally liable for restitution. The cost order against the…

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Emoluments Attachment Order
• Consent To Judgment
• Restitution
• Costs Award

Pinehurst Lodge Body Corporate v Fouche and Others (2024/067958)

Pinehurst Lodge Body Corporate v Fouche and Others (2024/067958) [2025] ZAGPJHC 132 (24 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/067958

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court declined to grant process-in-aid for enforcement of the Magistrates' Court judgment against the respondent's primary residence. The court found that the Magistrates' Court possesses all necessary powers to order and oversee execution against immovable property, including primary residences, and that process-in-aid is only appropriate where the lower court cannot effectively enforce its own judgment. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the Magistrates' Court was institutionally incapable of granting the relief sought, instead merely expressing dissatisfaction with the manne…

Source excerpt

• Process In Aid
• Execution Against Primary Residence
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Nulla Bona Return

Lloyd v Richards and Another (4892/2022)

Lloyd v Richards and Another (4892/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 41 (13 February 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4892/2022

Judge

Van Zyl

The court found that the sale of members’ interest agreement did not expressly or by necessary implication create joint and several liability. Clause 4.4 stipulated that each respondent purchased 50% of the members’ interest, and references to 'the Purchasers' and their joint conduct did not override this. The debt was divisible, and the presumption of joint liability applied. The applicant failed to show an intention to create joint and several liability. Regarding costs, the court held that the application was premature as the corporation was not debt-free at the effective date, and payment…

Source excerpt

• Sale Of Members Interest
• Joint Liability
• Contract Interpretation
• Costs Award
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction

Mambwe and Another v Mthsweni N.O and Another (2512/2024)

Mambwe and Another v Mthsweni N.O and Another (2512/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 3 (31 January 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

2512/2024

Judge

M I Mangena

The High Court found that the Magistrates’ Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Summer Breeze Home Owners Association’s claim against the applicants because the amount claimed (R216,669.90) exceeded the monetary limit of R200,000 set by the Minister at the time the summons was issued. The court relied on the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision in Vorster v Clothing City (Pty) Ltd, which established that jurisdiction is determined by the amount claimed in the pleadings. The argument that the claim comprised separate causes of action for levies and penalties was rejected; both were heads of da…

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Breach Of Contract
• Review Of Lower Court
• Levies And Penalties

Coetzee v Bosman (A66/2024 ; A67/2024)

Coetzee v Bosman (A66/2024 ; A67/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 232 (2 September 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A66/2024 ; A67/2024

Judges

Kusevitsky, Sidaki

The Magistrate erred in finding that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain common law claims against a deceased estate. The Administration of Estates Act does not oust the right of creditors to pursue such claims in court. The statutory scheme provides a process for liquidation of estates but does not preclude judicial enforcement of claims. The appeals are upheld, condonation for delay is granted, and the default judgment application in case 239/2021 is remitted for determination on the merits before a different Magistrate.

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Administration Of Deceased Estates
• Condonation Of Delay
• Default Judgment
• Common Law Claims Against Estate

S v Joubert (03/2023)

S v Joubert (03/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 198 (16 July 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

03/2023

Judges

Petersen, Reddy

The High Court reviewed an incompetent regional-court sentence and corrected it to five years’ imprisonment under section 276(1)(i) of the CPA.

• Sentencing Review
• Correctional Supervision
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Bail Pending Appeal
• Sentencing-review
• Criminal-procedure-act

Motlhaolwa and Another v Minister of Police (2037/2019)

Motlhaolwa and Another v Minister of Police (2037/2019) [2024] ZANWHC 179 (12 July 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

2037/2019

Judge

Mfenyana

The High Court held that the plaintiffs’ arrest and detention were unlawful and awarded each plaintiff R275,000 plus interest and costs on the magistrates’ court scale.

• Unlawful Arrest And Detention
• Damages Quantification
• Section 12 Right To Liberty
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Unlawful-arrest-and-detention
• Damages-quantification

S v Afrikaner (36/24)

S v Afrikaner (36/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 174 (19 June 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

36/24

Judges

M Sher, R Henney

The review court found that the trial in the magistrate's court was marred by numerous and egregious procedural irregularities. The magistrate failed to follow the prescribed procedures for plea-taking and questioning under sections 112 and 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act, allowed inadmissible hearsay evidence without corroboration, and repeatedly required the accused to plead and answer questions on charges already addressed. The main count of the second charge was defective, referencing minimum sentence provisions that did not apply to the facts, and the magistrate's court lacked jurisdic…

Source excerpt

• Domestic Violence Act
• Fair Trial Rights
• Hearsay Evidence
• Minimum Sentence Provisions
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction