South Africa Case Law

Colgate-Palmolive (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd and Another (095598/2024)

Colgate-Palmolive (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd and Another (095598/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1089 (11 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

095598/2024

Judge

Vally

The court found that Bliss Brands failed to comply with the order of Manoim J, as the changes made to the Securex packaging were merely cosmetic and did not materially distinguish the new packaging from the old offending packaging. Bliss also continued to advertise the old packaging online, including on its own website. Bliss did not discharge the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of wilfulness and mala fides. Consequently, Bliss was found to be in contempt of court. The court further held that Bliss should be precluded from proceeding with its own application until it purges its co…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Breach Of Court Order
• Advertising Regulation
• Code Of Advertising Practice
• Punitive Costs
• Right Of Access To Court

Rand Refinery Limited v Sehunane N.O. and Others (CCT 204/22)

Rand Refinery Limited v Sehunane N.O. and Others (CCT 204/22) [2023] ZACC 28; (2023) 44 ILJ 2434 (CC); 2023 (12) BCLR 1511 (CC); [2023] 12 BLLR 1235 (CC) (21 August 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 204/22

Judges

Zondo CJ, Maya DCJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo J, Rogers J, Theron J, Van Zyl AJ

The Constitutional Court held that Rand Refinery's opposing affidavit was filed and should have been considered by the Labour Court. The Labour Court's failure to consider this evidence violated Rand Refinery's right to a fair hearing under section 34 of the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, the Labour Court erred in setting aside the arbitration award without making a factual finding, on a balance of probabilities, that the award was improperly obtained as required by section 145(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act. The Court found that all relevant affidavits, including those filed in related High…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Right Of Access To Court
• Improperly Obtained Award
• Section 145 Labour Relations Act
• Section 34 Bill Of Rights

Mokhele v Minister of Defence and Others (4228/2021)

Mokhele v Minister of Defence and Others (4228/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 104 (27 May 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4228/2021

Judge

Daniso

The court dismissed an application to compel production of a fuller Rule 53 record, holding the filed documents were sufficient for review of the military appeal.

• Rule 53 Review Procedure
• Record Of Proceedings
• Right Of Access To Court
• Fair Trial Rights
• Rule-53-review
• Record-of-proceedings

Former Way Trade and Invest (Pty) Limited v Bright Idea Projects 66 (Pty) Limited (CCT 237/20)

Former Way Trade and Invest (Pty) Limited v Bright Idea Projects 66 (Pty) Limited (CCT 237/20) [2021] ZACC 33; 2021 (12) BCLR 1388 (CC) (28 September 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 237/20

Judges

Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that section 12B of the Petroleum Products Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction when a referral to arbitration is made. The discretion to stay proceedings pending arbitration remains with the court and must be exercised judicially. In this case, the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal correctly found that the franchise agreement had lapsed and no new agreement was concluded, as the applicant refused to pay the brand fee. The applicant's referral to arbitration was made only eight days before expiry and did not challenge the respondent's ownership or…

Source excerpt

• Petroleum Products Act
• Statutory Arbitration
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Right Of Access To Court
• Eviction
• Contractual Renewal

FRM v C vd Merwe N.O. and Others (5031/2020)

FRM v C vd Merwe N.O. and Others (5031/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 181 (17 June 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5031/2020

Judge

C.J. Musi

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review or appeal orders made by another High Court judge. The applicant failed to cite the necessary parties, resulting in material misjoinder and non-joinder, which are fatal procedural defects. On the merits, the respondents acted lawfully and reasonably within the framework of the Superior Courts Act and the Rules of the Supreme Court of Appeal. Their refusal to issue the application for leave to appeal was based on the absence of any record of such an application being filed or heard, and no order dismissing it existed. The respondents escala…

Source excerpt

• Right Of Access To Court
• Review Of Administrative Action
• State Liability Act
• Superior Courts Act
• Procedural Fairness

Department of Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries v B Xulu & Partners Incorporated and Others (6189/2019)

Department of Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries v B Xulu & Partners Incorporated and Others (6189/2019) [2021] ZAWCHC 112 (7 June 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6189/2019

Judge

M Pangarker

The High Court refused leave to appeal against contempt orders, finding no reasonable prospects of success and confirming fines, imprisonment and restrictions on further applications.

• Contempt Of Court
• Leave To Appeal
• Merger In Judgment Doctrine
• Right Of Access To Court
• Suspended Sentence
• Costs Order

Mwila v Seartec Trading (Pty) Ltd (A189/2019)

Mwila v Seartec Trading (Pty) Ltd (A189/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 152 (15 July 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A189/2019

Judges

Naidoo, Opperman

Appeal upheld against refusal of rescission of default judgment, with the default judgment and warrant of execution set aside and leave to defend granted.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Condonation
• Right Of Access To Court
• Rescission-of-judgment
• Default-judgment

J W v Williams-Ashman NO and Others (16108/19)

J W v Williams-Ashman NO and Others (16108/19) [2020] ZAWCHC 27; 2020 (4) SA 567 (WCC) (28 April 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16108/19

Judge

Sher

Section 2B of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 is not inconsistent with sections 25(1) or 34 of the Constitution. The provision serves a legitimate and compelling social purpose by preventing former spouses from benefiting under a will made prior to divorce unless the testator expressly intended otherwise. The deprivation of property it effects is not arbitrary, as it is limited in scope—applying only within three months of divorce—and is consistent with international practice. The provision does not oust the court's jurisdiction or discretion in matters of interpretation, nor does it infringe the rig…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Testation
• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property
• Wills Act Section 2b
• Right Of Access To Court
• Public Policy Inheritance
• Intestate Succession

Morudi and Others v NC Housing Services and Development Co Limited and Others (CCT270/17)

Morudi and Others v NC Housing Services and Development Co Limited and Others (CCT270/17) [2018] ZACC 32; 2019 (2) BCLR 261 (CC) (25 September 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 270/17

Judges

Mogoeng, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Petse, Theron

The Constitutional Court granted rescission and intervention in a shareholder dispute, holding that necessary parties had been denied a hearing and access to court.

• Joinder Of Necessary Parties
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Right Of Access To Court
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Shareholder Disputes
• Section 34 Constitution

L.A v E.A and Another (11046/2014)

L.A v E.A and Another (11046/2014) [2018] ZAKZPHC 13 (9 May 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

11046/2014

Judge

Mbatha

The court found that the applicant had genuine concerns regarding the valuation of the joint estate and was entitled to funds to obtain independent expert assistance. The liquidator's refusal to release funds, coupled with her irregular approach to a judge in chambers without notice to the applicant, breached the applicant's right of access to court and failed to discharge her fiduciary duties. The respondents' conduct was found to lack bona fides and amounted to gross negligence, justifying an order for costs de bonis propriis. The estate was sufficiently large to accommodate the interim pay…

Source excerpt

• Liquidation Of Joint Estate
• Fiduciary Duty Of Liquidator
• Contribution Towards Costs
• Right Of Access To Court