South Africa Case Law

Equistock Properties 8 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Oosthuizen and Others (738/2023; 739/2023)

Equistock Properties 8 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Oosthuizen and Others (738/2023; 739/2023) [2025] ZASCA 6 (29 January 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

738/2023; 739/2023

Judges

Dambuza, Hughes, Coppin

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the application for a final interdict was not properly authorised by Equistock Properties 8 (Pty) Ltd, as Mr Coetzee was neither a shareholder nor a director and the purported resolutions were invalid. The facts established that the long-standing arrangement entitled Laduma Biscuits (Pty) Ltd to collect rentals and manage the properties, and there was no evidence of injury to Equistock or any basis for apprehending harm. Furthermore, the pending action in the Pretoria High Court provided an alternative remedy. The punitive costs order against Mr Coetzee w…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Authority To Institute Proceedings
• Personal Costs Order
• Companies Act Section 74

International Pentecost Holiness Church v K J Selala Attorneys (2021/14237)

International Pentecost Holiness Church v K J Selala Attorneys (2021/14237) [2024] ZAGPJHC 265 (13 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/14237

Judge

Mdalana-Mayisela

The High Court ordered an attorney to pay de bonis propriis costs after proceeding with a leave to appeal application in the name of a deceased client.

• Personal Costs Order
• De Bonis Propriis
• Attorney Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Spoliation Order
• De-bonis-propriis

Goss v Bennett (A5021/2022)

Goss v Bennett (A5021/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 556 (31 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5021/2022

Judges

Twala, Francis, Fisher

The court found that the appellant deliberately and dishonestly secured his appointment as executor by failing to transmit the unsigned will to the Master, improperly signing the death notice, and withholding crucial information. This conduct breached statutory requirements and undermined the integrity expected of an attorney. The interests of the estate and beneficiaries, as well as the need for honest administration, justified the appellant's removal as executor. The retention of the laptop was not for safe custody but for ulterior motives, and its transfer to a neutral attorney was necessa…

Source excerpt

• Removal Of Executor
• Administration Of Estates Act
• Judicial Discretion
• Personal Costs Order

Willers v Wonderhoek Farms (Pty) Ltd (4303/2020)

Willers v Wonderhoek Farms (Pty) Ltd (4303/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 162 (22 July 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4303/2020

Judge

Chesiwe

The High Court granted leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal in a dispute over a de bonis propriis costs order, with costs to follow the appeal.

• Leave To Appeal
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Superior Courts Act
• Personal Costs Order
• Leave-to-appeal
• Costs-de-bonis-propriis

Speaker: OR Tambo District Municipal and Another v Madzidzela and Others (2417/21)

Speaker: OR Tambo District Municipal and Another v Madzidzela and Others (2417/21) [2021] ZAECMHC 18 (18 June 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2417/21

Judge

B R Tokota

The High Court interdicted an acting municipal manager, declared the mayor’s appointment invalid, and ordered the mayor to pay personal costs.

• Municipal Manager Appointment
• Delegation Of Powers
• Interdict
• Personal Costs Order
• Council Meeting Validity
• Municipal-manager-appointment

Gordhan and Others v Public Protector and Others (36099/2098)

Gordhan and Others v Public Protector and Others (36099/2098) [2020] ZAGPPHC 777 (17 December 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

36099/2098

Judges

E.M Kubushi, M.L Twala, N. Davis

The court held that the Public Protector lacked jurisdiction to investigate the complaint because no objectively determined special circumstances existed at the time she exercised discretion under section 6(9) of the Public Protector Act. The reasons for special circumstances were provided only after the investigation commenced, which is impermissible. The findings and remedial orders in the Report were based on material errors of law, including misinterpretation of statutory provisions and incorrect conclusions regarding the lawfulness of the applicants' conduct. The court found that the app…

Source excerpt

• Public Protector Jurisdiction
• Special Circumstances Exception
• Remedial Action
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Personal Costs Order
• Review Of Administrative Action

Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others (Freedom Under Law Intervening) (CCT48/17)

Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others (Freedom Under Law Intervening) (CCT48/17) [2018] ZACC 36; 2018 (12) BCLR 1472 (CC) (27 September 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT48/17

Judges

Mogoeng, Zondo, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Petse, Theron

The Constitutional Court held Minister Bathabile Dlamini personally liable for 20% of costs after finding she failed to disclose material facts and acted in grossly negligent bad faith.

• Personal Costs Order
• Ministerial Liability
• Gross Negligence
• Bad Faith
• Separation Of Powers
• Public Administration Ethics