South Africa Case Law

MEC for Health, Kwazulu-Natal v HOSPERSA obo Hoosen (D10/2022)

MEC for Health, Kwazulu-Natal v HOSPERSA obo Hoosen (D10/2022) [2025] ZALCD 21 (19 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D10/2022

Judge

K Allen-Yaman

The court found that the applicant failed to substantiate any reviewable irregularity in the arbitration award and did not provide evidence that it was not notified of the section 142A proceedings. The application for condonation was refused as the review application had no prospects of success. Regarding the settlement agreement, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that its representative lacked actual authority, and the circumstances established ostensible authority. The applicant's conduct and the representative's role reasonably led the first respondent to believe that autho…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Ostensible Authority
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Condonation
• Ultra Vires Settlement

Manana v King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality (PA01/2024)

Manana v King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality (PA01/2024) [2025] ZALAC 27; (2025) 46 ILJ 1899 (LAC) (7 May 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

PA 01/2024

Judges

Van Niekerk, Nkutha-Nkontwana, Mooki

The appeal was dismissed because the principle of ostensible authority cannot override statutory requirements for delegation of authority in organs of state. Section 59 of the Municipal Systems Act requires written delegation and council approval for sub-delegation of authority to settle disputes. Mr Nodo lacked such authority, and his unilateral actions could not bind the Municipality. The invocation of ostensible authority or estoppel is untenable where the legality principle is implicated, as courts cannot sanction illegality. The Labour Court correctly found that the Municipality was not…

Source excerpt

• Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement
• Ostensible Authority
• Delegation Of Powers
• Principle Of Legality
• Municipal Systems Act
• Costs In Labour Matters

Optimal Outcomes (Pty) Ltd v Go Canna Africa Ltd and Another (2021/1568)

Optimal Outcomes (Pty) Ltd v Go Canna Africa Ltd and Another (2021/1568) [2025] ZAGPPHC 376 (2 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2021/1568

Judge

Swanepoel

The plaintiff failed to prove that the second defendant made any representation, by word or conduct, that Naude was authorized to act on its behalf. All evidence of authority originated from Naude himself, not from the second defendant. The plaintiff's reliance on Naude's statements and the venue of meetings was insufficient to establish ostensible authority. Furthermore, even if some representation existed, it would not have been reasonable for the plaintiff to assume Naude was authorized to enter into a guarantee agreement outside the ordinary course of the second defendant's business. The…

Source excerpt

• Ostensible Authority
• Share Transfer
• Guarantee Agreement
• Rectification Of Contract
• Companies Act Section 45

Amathole District Municipality v Betram (Pty) Ltd and Another (CA151/2023)

Amathole District Municipality v Betram (Pty) Ltd and Another (CA151/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 89 (20 August 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA151/2023

Judges

M S Rugunanan, J W Eksteen, A Bodlani

The municipality failed to provide objective evidence that its acting manager, Mr Mosala, lacked authority to settle the litigation. The council resolution to defend was not disclosed, and no primary facts were presented to support the assertion of ultra vires conduct. The legal representatives had ostensible authority, and the settlement was reached in the course of litigation with full participation of the municipal manager. There was no evidence of impropriety or unlawfulness in the settlement process. The absence of an approved budget did not render the agreement invalid, as the settlemen…

Source excerpt

• Compromise Agreements
• Municipal Authority
• Ultra Vires
• Local Government Finance
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Ostensible Authority

Ditsoane v ACWA Power Africa Holdings (Pty) Ltd (CCT 107/23)

Ditsoane v ACWA Power Africa Holdings (Pty) Ltd (CCT 107/23) [2023] ZACC 44; 2024 (3) BCLR 307 (CC); (2024) 45 ILJ 467 (CC) (12 December 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 107/23

Judges

Maya, Kollapen, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Rogers, Schippers, Theron, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court found that the notice of withdrawal filed by the applicant's former attorneys was unauthorised, as it was contrary to her express instructions and not within the usual or implied authority of attorneys. There was no ratification or ostensible authority, and the applicant's conduct did not amount to acquiescence. The respondent suffered no real prejudice, as it was aware the applicant intended to pursue her claim. The delays in prosecuting the revival application were not attributable to the applicant but to court congestion and procedural confusion. The Labour Court m…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Authority Of Attorney
• Withdrawal Of Case
• Condonation
• Ostensible Authority

Desert Oil (Pty) Ltd v Griekwalandwes Korporatief Beperk t/a Vaalrivier Diensstasie (1753/2022)

Desert Oil (Pty) Ltd v Griekwalandwes Korporatief Beperk t/a Vaalrivier Diensstasie (1753/2022) [2023] ZANCHC 85 (17 November 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1753/2022

Judge

Lever

Interim interdict granted to stop cancellation of a fuel supply agreement; the court found a prima facie right, invalid cancellation notice, and no adequate damages remedy.

• Interim Interdict
• Contract Cancellation
• Specific Performance
• Ostensible Authority
• Material Breach
• Lex Commissoria

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

Motupa v Minister of Police (2017/11257)

Motupa v Minister of Police (2017/11257) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1502 (21 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2017/11257

Judge

Moorcroft

The court found that the correspondence between the parties, specifically the written offer by the State Attorney and its acceptance by the applicant's attorneys, constituted a binding and enforceable settlement agreement covering all outstanding issues in the litigation. The State Attorney had at least ostensible authority to settle the claim, and the respondent was bound by the agreement. The absence of agreement on ancillary matters such as costs of senior counsel or making the agreement an order of court did not prevent contractual force. There were no genuine factual disputes precluding…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Ostensible Authority
• Damages Quantum
• Interest On Judgment
• Costs Order

Economic Freedom Fighters v Brightstone Trading 3 CC t/a Gordon Road Spar and Others - Appeal (JA129/2021)

Economic Freedom Fighters v Brightstone Trading 3 CC t/a Gordon Road Spar and Others - Appeal (JA129/2021) [2023] ZALAC 21; [2023] 11 BLLR 1148 (LAC); (2023) 44 ILJ 2679 (LAC) (17 August 2023)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA129/2021

Judges

Waglay, Savage, Gqamana

The Labour Appeal Court held that the doctrine of ostensible authority requires that the principal, in this case the EFF, must have created an appearance or representation by words or conduct that its agent had authority to act on its behalf. The evidence did not show that the EFF, as a voluntary association, made such a representation or that it should reasonably have expected outsiders to act on the strength of it. The fact that Spar communicated with the EFF regional office indicated awareness of the party's internal structures and did not amount to a representation by the EFF itself. The…

Source excerpt

• Ostensible Authority
• Costs Order
• Urgent Interdict
• Agency By Estoppel

Swanepoel v Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (C160/2020)

Swanepoel v Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (C160/2020) [2023] ZALCCT 37 (27 June 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C160/2020

Judge

Lagrange

The court found that the inspecting judge lacked actual statutory authority to approve the applicant's eight notch salary increase after the 2008 amendments to the Correctional Services Act, which transferred such powers to the Chief Executive Officer. Even if authority were assumed, the requirements of the Public Service Act and Regulations for lawful salary advancement were not satisfied. The applicant's alternative reliance on ostensible authority and estoppel failed, as these doctrines cannot validate an unlawful act or confer powers not granted by statute. The respondent was entitled and…

Source excerpt

• Specific Performance
• Public Service Act
• Salary Adjustment
• Ostensible Authority
• Estoppel