South Africa Case Law

Lategan and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Another (314/2022)

Lategan and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Another (314/2022) [2024] ZASCA 74; 2024 (2) SACR 227 (SCA) (10 May 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

314/2022

Judges

Molemela, Hughes, Weiner, Windell, Keightley

Sections 58, 59, and 60 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 are procedural in nature and do not affect the substantive rights of accused persons. These provisions apply to future criminal proceedings, even where the underlying offences were committed before the Act's commencement but prosecuted thereafter. The presumption against retrospectivity does not bar the application of procedural rules to future trials. The regional magistrate's order to remove these sections from the charge sheet was a gross irregularity, properly subject to review rathe…

Source excerpt

• Sexual Offences
• Retrospective Application
• Procedural Vs Substantive Law
• Review Vs Appeal
• Criminal Evidence
• Transitional Provisions

Fookwe v Road Accident Fund (23481/2016)

Fookwe v Road Accident Fund (23481/2016) [2024] ZAWCHC 115 (29 April 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

23481/2016

Judge

J Cloete

The court found that the RAF's reliance on section 19(d)(i) of the Road Accident Fund Act and regulations 7 and 8 of the Medical Schemes Act to exclude liability for medical expenses paid by Discovery Health is unfounded, as established by a long line of authority confirming the doctrine of subrogation. The RAF's internal directives regarding ICD codes cannot be applied retrospectively, especially where the plaintiff was not notified of any rejection or given an opportunity to comply. The court allowed the majority of the disputed medical expenses, partially allowed the cost of imported anaes…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Medical Expenses Recovery
• Subrogation
• Internal Directives
• Retrospective Application
• Costs Award

Road Accident Fund v Sheriff Of The High Court, Pretoria and Another (0114226/2023)

Road Accident Fund v Sheriff Of The High Court, Pretoria and Another (0114226/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1336 (20 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

0114226/2023

Judge

Twala M L

The High Court held that the RAF’s foreign-claimant directive did not apply retrospectively to a 2015 accident claim lodged in 2017, and dismissed the stay application with costs.

• Stay Of Execution
• Authority Of Settlement
• Retrospective Application
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Constitutional Equality
• Stay-of-execution

A.M v S.D (AR 220/2022)

A.M v S.D (AR 220/2022) [2023] ZAKZPHC 48; 2023 (2) SACR 296 (KZP) (12 May 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 220/2022

Judges

Mossop, Madondo

The court found that only one of the four incidents alleged by the respondent was notionally actionable under the Protection from Harassment Act, as the first incident predated the Act's commencement and the third and fourth incidents were not sufficiently oppressive or repetitive. The second incident, while actionable, did not meet the threshold of overwhelming oppressiveness required for a single act to justify a protection order. The evidence did not establish a course of conduct with a repetitive element, nor did it show harassment of related persons. The magistrate's order was therefore…

Source excerpt

• Protection From Harassment Act
• Harassment
• Protection Order
• Retrospective Application
• Course Of Conduct

Mukuru Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (520/2020)

Mukuru Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (520/2020) [2021] ZASCA 116; 84 SATC 304 (16 September 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

520/2020

Judges

Ponnan, Mbha, Mathopo, Makgoka, Hughes

The SCA held that Mukuru could not apply a new VAT apportionment method retrospectively beyond the limit in section 17(1) proviso (iii).

• Value Added Tax
• Apportionment Of Input Tax
• Vat Rulings
• Binding General Ruling
• Retrospective Application
• Value-added-tax

Taxpayer v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (VAT2063)

Taxpayer v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (VAT2063) [2019] ZATC 2; 82 SATC 271 (15 November 2019)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT2063

Judge

K M Savage

The Tax Court dismissed an appeal seeking retrospective approval of a VAT apportionment method, holding that section 17(1) of the VAT Act limited retrospectivity.

• Vat Apportionment
• Private Binding Ruling
• Retrospective Application
• Binding General Ruling 16
• Input Tax Deduction
• Vat-apportionment

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration v Commission Staff Association and Another (JA110/2018)

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration v Commission Staff Association and Another (JA110/2018) [2019] ZALAC 69; [2020] 1 BLLR 9 (LAC); (2020) 41 ILJ 145 (LAC) (16 October 2019)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA110/2018

Judges

Davis, Coppin, Murphy

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 198B(3) to (5) of the Labour Relations Act do not apply retrospectively to fixed-term contracts concluded before 1 January 2015.

• Fixed Term Contracts
• Retrospective Application
• Labour Relations Act
• Employment Status
• Statutory Interpretation
• Fixed-term-contracts

Phaahla v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (Tlhakanye Intervening) (CCT44/18)

Phaahla v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (Tlhakanye Intervening) (CCT44/18) [2019] ZACC 18; 2019 (2) SACR 88 (CC); 2019 (7) BCLR 795 (CC) (3 May 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 44/18

Judges

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

The Constitutional Court held that parole eligibility is a component of punishment for constitutional purposes. Sections 136(1) and 73(6)(b)(iv) of the Correctional Services Act create arbitrary and irrational differentiation between inmates based on date of sentencing rather than date of commission of offence, resulting in unequal treatment and retrospective imposition of harsher punishment. This violates section 9(1) and (3) (equality before the law and non-discrimination) and section 35(3)(n) (right to least severe punishment) of the Constitution. The impugned provisions are declared incon…

Source excerpt

• Parole Eligibility
• Equality Before The Law
• Least Severe Punishment
• Retrospective Application
• Correctional Services Act
• Fair Trial Rights

Mzizi and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (10719/18P)

Mzizi and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (10719/18P) [2019] ZAKZPHC 83 (30 April 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

10719/18P

Judge

Mngadi

The court held that the parole regime applicable to offenders is an integral part of the sentence and must be determined by the law in force at the time of the offence, not the date of sentencing. Applying the more onerous post-1 October 2004 parole regime to offenders who committed their crimes and were arrested before that date constitutes retrospective application of a harsher punishment, which is impermissible under the Constitution and the principle against retrospectivity. The transitional provisions of the Correctional Services Act do not adequately cater for offenders in the applicant…

Source excerpt

• Parole Eligibility
• Retrospective Application
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Declaratory Relief
• Life Imprisonment
• Transitional Provisions

Ex Parte: Goosen and Others (2018/2137)

Ex Parte: Goosen and Others (2018/2137) [2019] ZAGPJHC 68; 2019 (3) SA 489 (GJ); [2019] 2 All SA 702 (GJ) (25 March 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/2137

The court held that section 115 of the Legal Practice Act preserves pending pre-1 November 2018 applications for admission as advocates.

• Legal Practitioner Admission
• Legal Practice Act Transition
• Advocates Admissions Act
• Retrospective Application
• Vested Rights
• Vocational Training Requirements