South Africa Case Law

Actom (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers of Southern Africa (NUMSA) and Others (J1089/21)

Actom (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers of Southern Africa (NUMSA) and Others (J1089/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 305 (20 September 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1089/21

Judge

G N Moshoana

The Court found that the strike notice issued by NUMSA complied with section 64(1)(b) of the LRA, as it provided 48 hours' notice of commencement, and the time could be calculated from receipt of the notice. The Dibben ruling was not binding for purposes of prohibiting the strike, as the relevant collective agreement had expired before the strike action commenced, and thus did not regulate or prohibit the wiring dispute at the time of the strike. The Mafeke dispute had been settled by agreement between the parties, and NUMSA could not lawfully strike over a resolved issue; any new demand rega…

Source excerpt

• Strike Interdict
• Collective Bargaining
• Protected Strike
• Settlement Agreement
• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Procedural Requirements

Labonte 5 (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others (WT02/18/LMP)

Labonte 5 (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others (WT02/18/LMP) [2020] ZAWT 2 (12 August 2020)

Court

Water Tribunal

Case number

WT02/18/LMP

Judges

L. Mbanjwa, U. Mbeki

The Water Tribunal dismissed an appeal against refusal of a water use licence, finding the applicant had not properly submitted required DW 902 forms and supporting documents.

• Water Use Licensing
• National Water Act
• Procedural Requirements
• Appeal Procedure
• Water-use-licensing
• National-water-act

Nompozolo v Phytomed Close Corporation and Others (1142/2015)

Nompozolo v Phytomed Close Corporation and Others (1142/2015) [2015] ZAECPEHC 48 (26 August 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1142/2015

Judge

G Goosen

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not seek relief against the correct party and failed to meet PAIA’s procedural requirements.

• Access To Information
• Close Corporation Membership
• Procedural Requirements
• Paia Section 50
• Paia
• Access-to-information

H R Computek (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (830/2012)

H R Computek (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (830/2012) [2012] ZASCA 178; 75 SATC 104 (29 November 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

830/2011

Judges

CLOETE, LEWIS, PONNAN, CACHALIA, ERASMUS

The court held that the appellant did not object to the capital portion of the VAT assessment in its notice of objection or accompanying documents. The objection was limited to additional tax, penalties, and interest. The appellant's reference to the total amount in dispute did not constitute an objection to the capital assessment. As a result, the appellant was precluded from raising the capital amount as an issue on appeal. The assessment of the capital amount became final and conclusive after the prescribed period, and SARS was not required to revisit its assessment. The appeal was dismiss…

Source excerpt

• Value Added Tax Act
• Grounds Of Objection
• Finality Of Assessment
• Appeal Limitation
• Procedural Requirements

Fortuin v Cobra Promotions CC (1658/09)

Fortuin v Cobra Promotions CC (1658/09) [2010] ZAECPEHC 40; 2010 (5) SA 288 (ECP) ; [2011] 2 All SA 225 (ECP) (17 June 2010)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1658/09

Judge

J G Grogan

The court ordered a close corporation to disclose financial records under PAIA, finding substantial compliance with the request form and that the records were reasonably required.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Close Corporations Act
• Substantial Compliance
• Right To Information
• Member Rights
• Procedural Requirements

Nonxago v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (ECJ 045/2005)

Nonxago v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (ECJ 045/2005) [2005] ZAECHC 22; [2005] 4 All SA 567 (SE) (30 May 2005)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

ECJ 045/2005

Judge

Kroon

The court held that a claimant failed to comply with article 48(f)(i) by submitting affidavits containing knowingly false material averments, and dismissed the claim.

• Motor Vehicle Accident
• Statutory Compliance
• False Affidavit
• Road Accident Fund
• Procedural Requirements
• Motor-vehicle-accident