South Africa Case Law

Hendricks v City of Cape Town and Another (12803/2024)

Hendricks v City of Cape Town and Another (12803/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 344 (13 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12803/2024

Judge

Da Silva Salie

Transnet Limited has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the action, as the dispute over ownership and responsibility for the manhole directly implicates its legal interests. The risk of inconsistent judgments and prejudice to the applicant, particularly regarding the prescription period, necessitates joinder. The denial of liability by Transnet does not negate its interest; rather, the dispute itself underscores the need for its participation. Joinder will not cause undue prejudice to Transnet beyond its involvement in the proceedings, which is inherent in any joinder.…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Municipal Liability
• Prescription Period

Pro Secure (Pty) Ltd v Special Investigating Unit (LP/03/2022)

Pro Secure (Pty) Ltd v Special Investigating Unit (LP/03/2022) [2024] ZAST 5 (24 July 2024)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

LP/03/2022

Judge

K Pillay

The Tribunal found that the SIU is empowered by statute to institute proceedings in its own name or on behalf of the relevant state institution, and that the particulars of claim sufficiently allege contraventions of procurement law and irregular payments to Pro Secure. The excipient failed to demonstrate that no cause of action is disclosed on any reasonable interpretation of the pleadings. The argument regarding non-joinder is without substance, as the SIU is statutorily authorised to act in this manner. The Tribunal further held that the proceedings were not instituted under PAJA but on th…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Non Joinder
• Cause Of Action
• Public Procurement
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Prescription Period

MEC for Health, Gauteng v M.C.C - Appeal (10242/2017)

MEC for Health, Gauteng v M.C.C - Appeal (10242/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1384 (28 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10242/2017

Judge

SC Mia

The High Court granted the MEC for Health leave to appeal, finding reasonable prospects of success on issues of prescription, pleaded negligence, and surgical complication.

• Medical Negligence
• Leave To Appeal
• Prescription Period
• Complications Of Surgery
• Leave-to-appeal
• Medical-negligence

Acacia Finance (Pty) Ltd v Sure Guard CC and Others (2012/16759)

Acacia Finance (Pty) Ltd v Sure Guard CC and Others (2012/16759) [2023] ZAGPJHC 278 (29 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2012/16759

Judge

Dlamini

The court found that the respondents failed to raise any bona fide or material disputes of fact. The Settlement Agreement, made an order of court, remains binding and enforceable, and the prescription period applicable is thirty years. The respondents' arguments regarding prescription, full and final settlement, cash payments, and authority to enter into the agreement were unsupported and dismissed. The rectification sought was minor and granted. The counter-application to set aside the mortgage bond was found to be meritless, as the debt is judgment-based and the necessary authority for regi…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Prescription Period
• Rectification Of Contract
• Special Executability
• Mortgage Bond
• Counter Application

Smuts v ABSA Bank Limited (NCT/208343/2021/141(1)(b))

Smuts v ABSA Bank Limited (NCT/208343/2021/141(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 3 (19 January 2022)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/208343/2021/141(1)(b)

Judges

FK Manamela, A Potwana, J Simpson

The Tribunal refused leave to refer a consumer complaint against ABSA Bank, finding the claim time-barred under section 166(1)(a) of the NCA.

• National Credit Act
• Leave To Refer
• Prescription Period
• Default Judgment
• Section 129 Notice
• National-credit-act

Khanya v The Minister of Police (5458/2014)

Khanya v The Minister of Police (5458/2014) [2019] ZAFSHC 81 (20 June 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5458/2014

Judge

Meintjes

The High Court upheld a prescription special plea in an unlawful arrest claim, finding the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the material facts in time.

• Prescription Act
• Unlawful Arrest
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against State
• Prescription Period
• Knowledge Of Debt
• Prescription-act

Wilke N.O and Others v Griekwaland Wes Korporatief Ltd (592/2019)

Wilke N.O and Others v Griekwaland Wes Korporatief Ltd (592/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 84 (20 June 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

592/2019

Judge

Daffue

The court refused to cancel a trust surety bond, holding that prior litigation against the principal debtor did not extinguish the creditor’s rights against the surety.

• Suretyship
• Prescription Period
• Res Judicata
• Issue Estoppel
• Company Deregistration
• Res-judicata

Paragon Lending Solutions (Pty) Limited v Weybridge Properties (Pty) Limited (2847/17)

Paragon Lending Solutions (Pty) Limited v Weybridge Properties (Pty) Limited (2847/17) [2018] ZANCHC 66 (21 September 2018)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2847/17

Judge

S C O'Brien

The High Court granted provisional liquidation against a company said to be unable to pay a secured loan debt and rejected its prescription and bona fide dispute defenses.

• Provisional Liquidation
• Company Indebtedness
• Certificate Of Balance
• Mortgage Bond Security
• Prescription Period
• Bona Fide Dispute

T v T and Others (13040/2013)

T v T and Others (13040/2013) [2015] ZAGPJHC 131; [2015] 3 All SA 631 (GJ) (19 June 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13040/2013

Judge

Mokgoatlheng

High Court rescinds adoption orders where the children’s best interests and the constitutional primacy of child welfare outweighed the Children’s Act time limit.

• Rescission Of Adoption Order
• Best Interests Of Child
• Prescription Period
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Constitutional Supremacy
• Rescission-of-adoption-order

Linpac Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd and Another v Du Plessis and Another, In Re: Linpac Plastics Ltd and Others v Du Plessis and Others (019513)

Linpac Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd and Another v Du Plessis and Another, In Re: Linpac Plastics Ltd and Others v Du Plessis and Others (019513) [2014] ZACT 64; [2014] 2 CPLR 516 (CT) (6 November 2014)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

019513

Judges

Norman Manoim, Andiswa Ndoni, Mondo Mazwai

The Tribunal held that the prescription period in section 67(1) of the Competition Act does not apply to referrals made by a civil court under section 65(2)(b). The language of section 67(1) is specific to complaint referrals initiated under section 49B and does not extend to court referrals, which are governed by a distinct process. The Tribunal distinguished between the public nature of complaint referrals and the private nature of court referrals, noting that the latter bypasses the Competition Commission and is limited to the parties in the civil suit. The Tribunal found that imposing the…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Period
• Court Referral
• Prohibited Practices
• Section 65 Referral
• Section 67 Limitation