South Africa Case Law

Hamilton v Member of the Executive Council Responsible for Economic Development, Gauteng and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2023/049211)

Hamilton v Member of the Executive Council Responsible for Economic Development, Gauteng and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2023/049211) [2024] ZAGPPHC 922 (19 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/049211

Judge

Holland-Muter

The High Court rescinded the earlier removal of a leave-to-appeal application, confirmed the attorneys’ mandate, and refused leave to appeal with costs.

• Leave To Appeal
• Rescission Of Order
• Mandate Of Attorney
• Costs Award
• Leave-to-appeal
• Rescission-of-order

Magano and Others v Kaps and Others (UM92/2020)

Magano and Others v Kaps and Others (UM92/2020) [2024] ZANWHC 80 (19 March 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM92/2020

Judge

FMM Reid

The High Court dismissed a Rule 42(1)(a) rescission application, finding no proof that attorneys lacked mandate and holding the delay of over three years unjustified.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Mandate Of Attorney
• Delay And Condonation
• Board Resolution Validity
• Bank Account Signatory Change
• Rescission-of-judgment

Khumalo v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa and Another (J1233 /2020)

Khumalo v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa and Another (J1233 /2020) [2023] ZALCJHB 303; (2024) 45 ILJ 123 (LC) (27 October 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1233 /2020

Judge

Prinsloo

The court found that the applicant had mandated her attorney to negotiate a settlement within the range of six to nine months' compensation, and the attorney acted within the scope of this mandate when settling for six months. The employer was entitled to rely on the attorney's ostensible authority, and there was no evidence that the agreement was subject to being reduced to writing and signed before becoming binding. The applicant accepted the settlement amount, returned employer property, and withdrew her provident fund, thereby affirming the agreement and precluding her from seeking to hav…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Ostensible Authority
• Mandate Of Attorney
• Termination Of Employment
• Costs Award

Eriksson v Hollard Insurance Company Limited and Others (2021/45339)

Eriksson v Hollard Insurance Company Limited and Others (2021/45339) [2023] ZAGPJHC 39 (24 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/45339

Judge

Strydom

The High Court held that a late Rule 7(1) challenge to attorneys’ authority could be condoned, and that ECKA’s mandate was sufficiently established.

• Authority To Act
• Uniform Rule 7
• Mandate Of Attorney
• Corporate Resolution
• Condonation
• Joinder

L.B obo T.B v Medical Superintendent of Universitas Academic Hospital and Others (1154/2022)

L.B obo T.B v Medical Superintendent of Universitas Academic Hospital and Others (1154/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 202 (18 August 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1154/2022

Judge

M S Litheko

PAIA application for medical records dismissed after the court found the respondents were not custodians of the birth records sought.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Locus Standi
• Mandate Of Attorney
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Paia
• Medical-records

Noortman v Road Accident Fund (517 / 2019)

Noortman v Road Accident Fund (517 / 2019) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 38 (1 June 2022)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

517 / 2019

Judge

Ratshibvumo

The High Court dismissed an application to correct RAF claimant details, finding it was not a mere clerical error but an apparent attempt to legitimize a fraudulent claim.

• Rectification Of Claimant Details
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Locus Standi
• Mandate Of Attorney
• Road-accident-fund
• Civil-procedure

Barnard Patel Attorneys and Another v Chester (16255/2018)

Barnard Patel Attorneys and Another v Chester (16255/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 163 (3 March 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

16255/2018

Judge

Mbongwe

High Court application to compel further particulars dismissed; the court held the requested details were unnecessary or privileged, and costs followed the result.

• Request For Further Particulars
• Privilege
• Negligence
• Prescription
• Mandate Of Attorney
• Civil-procedure

Sheperd Bushiri Investments (Proprietary) Limited and Others v JM Busha Investmenst Group (Proprietary) (39782/2019)

Sheperd Bushiri Investments (Proprietary) Limited and Others v JM Busha Investmenst Group (Proprietary) (39782/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 647 (11 November 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

39782/2019

Judge

N Manoim

The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving that their legal representatives lacked a mandate to consent to the judgment. The factual context, including the applicants' conduct before and after the order, indicates their legal team was instructed to negotiate an extension for repayment, which was achieved through the manuscript amendments to the order. The late invocation of contractual defences and absence of supporting evidence from the erstwhile attorneys further undermine the applicants' case. The alleged errors in interest calculation and breach invocation do not justify resci…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Loan Agreement
• Suretyship
• Mandate Of Attorney
• Interest Rate Dispute

Trustees of the Rae Family Trust (T2031-2000) v Ledger and Others (11895/19)

Trustees of the Rae Family Trust (T2031-2000) v Ledger and Others (11895/19) [2020] ZAWCHC 150 (6 November 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11895/19

Judge

R.C.A. Henney

The court held that the authority of ENS attorneys to act for the Rae Family Trust was valid only while the trust had the minimum number of trustees as required by its deed and as authorised by the Master. Upon the death of Rae, the trust was left with only one authorised trustee, Van Graan, and Dunn, although nominated, had not yet received letters of authority from the Master. This resulted in the trust lacking the capacity to act, and any mandate previously given to ENS ceased to be valid. The Rule 7(1) application disputing authority was brought within the prescribed period after Bisiplex…

Source excerpt

• Trustee Authority
• Mandate Of Attorney
• Rule 7 Application
• Trust Deed Minimum Trustees
• Condonation
• Striking Out Affidavit

Shepherd Bsuhiri Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others v J M Busha Investment Group (Proprietary) Limited (39782/2019)

Shepherd Bsuhiri Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others v J M Busha Investment Group (Proprietary) Limited (39782/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 294 (10 July 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

39782/2019

Judge

Twala M L

The High Court dismissed an urgent application to stay execution of a judgment pending rescission proceedings, finding the applicants had an adequate alternative remedy.

• Interim Interdict
• Stay Of Execution
• Mandate Of Attorney
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Interim-interdict
• Stay-of-execution