South Africa Case Law

Gold Circle Proprietary Ltd v Kwa-Zulu Natal Gaming and Betting Board and Others (9101/2023P)

Gold Circle Proprietary Ltd v Kwa-Zulu Natal Gaming and Betting Board and Others (9101/2023P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 18 (14 February 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

9101/2023P

Judge

Poyo Dlwati JP

The court held that Gold Circle is entitled to the 3% tax distribution only for bets placed on horse races staged at its licensed racecourses, as specified in its licence, and not for races held elsewhere or internationally. The Board’s withholding of all payments was unlawful, and Gold Circle had a legitimate expectation of payment based on statutory provisions and longstanding practice. The Board’s opposition to the main application was without merit and amounted to an abuse of process, justifying a punitive costs order on the attorney and client scale. However, the court declined to hold i…

Source excerpt

• Distribution Of Gambling Taxes
• Statutory Interpretation
• Provincial Revenue Fund
• Intergovernmental Dispute Resolution
• Personal Costs Orders
• Strike Out Application

Mabasa and Another v Municipal Manager: O R Tambo District Municipality and Others (2503/2022)

Mabasa and Another v Municipal Manager: O R Tambo District Municipality and Others (2503/2022) [2024] ZAECMHC 7 (23 January 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2503/2022

Judge

Jolwana

The court ordered the municipal manager to comply with a prior order recognising Mr Mabasa as councillor, but declined contempt imprisonment and personal costs.

• Contempt Of Court
• Municipal Structures Act
• Compliance With Court Orders
• Personal Costs Orders
• Contempt-of-court
• Compliance-with-court-orders

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others v Master of the High Court, Cape Town and Others (16103/2022)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others v Master of the High Court, Cape Town and Others (16103/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 286 (16 November 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16103/2022

Judge

H J De Waal

The court found that the attacks on the integrity of Messrs Lüderitz and Strime were false, unwarranted, irrelevant, scandalous, and vexatious, and that they prejudiced the applicants and their legal team. The strike-out application by the applicants succeeded, and personal and punitive costs orders were justified against the responsible respondents and their attorney due to their egregious disregard for professional responsibilities. The further evidence application was dismissed as it was brought late, lacked materiality, and would prejudice the applicants. The wasted costs of the postponem…

Source excerpt

• Strike Out Application
• Personal Costs Orders
• Punitive Costs
• Liquidation Inquiries
• Abuse Of Process

Dhlamini and Another v City Manager of The City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023-009319)

Dhlamini and Another v City Manager of The City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023-009319) [2023] ZAGPJHC 147 (13 February 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-009319

Judge

A.C. Dodson

The court found that the city manager acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally by resuming and chairing a council meeting after the speaker had adjourned it, as she lacked authority under both the standing orders and the Municipal Structures Act. The absence of a valid written request from a majority of councillors and the lack of refusal by the speaker to convene a meeting meant section 29(1A) did not apply. All decisions taken at the unlawfully resumed meeting, including the removal of the speaker, appointment of an acting speaker, suspension of standing orders, renaming of a park, and waste…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Structures Act
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Separation Of Powers
• Personal Costs Orders
• Contempt Of Court
• Rule Of Law

Ntsimane and Others v Memela (JA25/2020)

Ntsimane and Others v Memela (JA25/2020) [2021] ZALAC 27; (2021) 42 ILJ 2400 (LAC); [2021] 12 BLLR 1202 (LAC) (6 September 2021)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA25/2020

Judges

Waglay, Coppin, Kubushi

The Labour Appeal Court set aside a contempt conviction and personal costs order after finding no proof of wilful, mala fide disobedience of the court order.

• Contempt Of Court
• Personal Costs Orders
• Suspension Of Employees
• Collective Agreement Disciplinary Code
• Contempt-of-court
• Personal-costs-orders

Zuma v Office of the Public Protector and Others (1447/2018)

Zuma v Office of the Public Protector and Others (1447/2018) [2020] ZASCA 138 (30 October 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1447/2018

Judges

Maya P, Zondi JA, Dambuza JA, Schippers JA, Unterhalter AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Mr Zuma's application for leave to appeal against the punitive costs order had no reasonable prospect of success. The high court exercised its discretion judicially and applied the correct legal principles in awarding personal and punitive costs against Mr Zuma, who acted in his personal capacity. The court found that Mr Zuma's conduct in launching and pursuing the review application was reckless, motivated by personal interests, and delayed the investigation into serious allegations of state capture. The attempt to appeal only the costs order, without ch…

Source excerpt

• Personal Costs Orders
• Punitive Costs
• Presidential Powers
• Commission Of Inquiry
• State Capture
• Judicial Discretion

Nkoana-Mashabane v District Six Working Committee and Others (LCC54/2018(B))

Nkoana-Mashabane v District Six Working Committee and Others (LCC54/2018(B)) [2020] ZALCC 10 (5 October 2020)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC54/2018(B)

Judge

Ngcukaitobi

The application for condonation was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the lengthy delay in challenging the personal costs orders. The court found that the explanations offered, including reliance on the pending application for leave to appeal and the impact of the National State of Disaster, were inadequate and did not justify the delay. The court held that there is no legal requirement for joinder before a personal costs order can be made against an official, provided the official is given fair and adequate notice of the risk. The a…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Joinder
• Personal Costs Orders
• Delay In Instituting Proceedings
• Abuse Of Process

Minister of Finance v Public Protector and Others (15862/2019)

Minister of Finance v Public Protector and Others (15862/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 804; 2022 (1) SA 244 (GP) (31 August 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

15862/2019

Judge

Kathree-Setiloane

The court held that a rule 6(5)(d)(iii) notice is not a pleading as contemplated by rule 23(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court. It is merely a notice indicating the respondent's intention to rely on points of law that may be dispositive of the dispute. Since it is neither a pleading nor an affidavit, it is impermissible to raise an exception against such a notice. The Minister's exception was therefore incompetent and bad in law. Once the rule 6(5)(d)(iii) notice was served, the matter was ready to be set down for hearing on the points of law. The court dismissed the exception and found that a…

Source excerpt

• Rule 23 Exception
• Rule 6 5 D Iii Notice
• Pleadings Vs Notices
• Remedial Action Review
• Personal Costs Orders

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform v District Six Working Committee and Others (LCC54/2018(B))

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform v District Six Working Committee and Others (LCC54/2018(B)) [2020] ZALCC 3 (25 March 2020)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC54/2018(B)

Judge

T Ngcukaitobi

There is no valid application for leave to appeal before the court as neither the current Minister nor the Department is pursuing it, and the former Minister has refused to be joined in her personal capacity. The application is devoid of merit, constitutes an abuse of process, and fails to advance any exceptional circumstances required for a costs-only appeal. The court has the authority to enquire into the source of legal fees, especially where there is a risk of abuse of public funds. The conduct of the former Minister and her attorneys, including their refusal to clarify the source of lega…

Source excerpt

• Personal Costs Orders
• Leave To Appeal
• Abuse Of Process
• State Funding Of Private Litigation
• Restitution Of Land Rights

eThekwini Municipality and Others v Westwood Insurance Brokers Proprietary Limited (AR230/2018)

eThekwini Municipality and Others v Westwood Insurance Brokers Proprietary Limited (AR230/2018) [2020] ZAKZPHC 2 (31 January 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR230/2018

Judges

Vahed, Olsen, Masipa

The appeal succeeded because the court a quo erred in making adverse personal costs orders against municipal officials who were not joined as parties to the proceedings and were not afforded a fair opportunity to respond. The issues of personal costs liability were not raised in the pleadings or affidavits and were introduced mero motu by the court, contrary to established principles of judicial restraint and party presentation. The process adopted failed to meet the requirements of joinder and fair hearing, as the affected officials were not given adequate notice, opportunity to participate,…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Personal Costs Orders
• Joinder
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Constitutional Accountability