South Africa Case Law

Kempff v Mothuloe (2016-31186)

Kempff v Mothuloe (2016-31186) [2024] ZAGPJHC 312 (27 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2016/31186

Judge

Strydom

The court found that the suspensive condition requiring the Master’s approval was inserted solely for the benefit of the curator bonis to avoid personal liability. The Master’s reply established that he was not empowered to approve or sanction the settlement agreement, rendering the suspensive condition inapplicable. Applying the officious bystander test, the court held that the parties would have intended the agreement to become unconditional if the Master lacked authority. Alternatively, the applicant, by filing the Rule 41(4) application, validly waived the suspensive condition before the…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Suspensive Condition
• Waiver Of Condition
• Curator Bonis
• Rule 41 Application

Lequbu Specialised Services (Pty) Ltd v Matjhabeng Local Municipality (3328/2021)

Lequbu Specialised Services (Pty) Ltd v Matjhabeng Local Municipality (3328/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 14 (18 January 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3328/2021

Judge

J J F Hefer

The court found that the applicant's claim for enforcement of the settlement agreement was properly brought under Rule 41(4), as the agreement was concluded in finalisation of litigation and signed by the respondent's duly authorised representative. The respondent's opposition, based on alleged procurement irregularities and suspicious circumstances, was unsupported by any specific facts or evidence linking the applicant to wrongdoing. The respondent failed to demonstrate any bona fide dispute of fact or valid defence to enforcement. The settlement agreement was not contrary to public policy…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Rule 41 Application
• Municipal Contractual Liability
• Procurement Irregularities

Timac Agro South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Botes N.O. (4909/2020)

Timac Agro South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Botes N.O. (4909/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 444 (13 November 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4909/2020

Judge

Van Zyl

The court removed an application from the roll because the Master of the High Court had a direct interest and had not been served. Costs were reserved.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Administration Of Deceased Estates
• Settlement Agreement
• Rule 41 Application
• Joinder-of-parties
• Administration-of-deceased-estates

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v NEC Africa (Pty) Ltd (69402/2017)

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v NEC Africa (Pty) Ltd (69402/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 507 (14 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

69402/2017

Judge

Neukircher

The court held that the applicants' claim for costs prescribed because all facts necessary for their cause of action were known on 19 June 2018, when the notice of withdrawal was delivered without a tender for costs. The applicants' argument that prescription only begins upon a court order or taxation was rejected, as legal certainty is not a prerequisite for prescription to commence. Subsequent correspondence between the parties did not interrupt or affect prescription, as there was no unequivocal acknowledgment of liability for costs by the respondent. Accordingly, the application for costs…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Withdrawal Of Proceedings
• Costs Order
• Rule 41 Application

Matsaung v Mathedimosa and Others (1101/2019)

Matsaung v Mathedimosa and Others (1101/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 33 (27 June 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

1101/2019

Judge

Kganyago

High Court review of a Taxing Master’s rulings on costs: the applicant succeeded on items linked to a Rule 41(1)(c) application, while the respondents succeeded only on one item.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Review Of Taxing Master
• Rule 41 Application
• Withdrawal Of Taxation
• Taxation-of-costs
• Review-of-taxing-master

Bidvest Bank Limited v Jacobs Capital (Pty) Limited (11890/2015)

Bidvest Bank Limited v Jacobs Capital (Pty) Limited (11890/2015) [2018] ZAKZDHC 34 (29 June 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

11890/2015

Judge

Gorven

The High Court allowed withdrawal of a provisional sentence summons and held that party-and-party costs, not attorney-and-client costs, applied.

• Withdrawal Of Proceedings
• Costs Award
• Attorney And Client Scale
• Party And Party Scale
• Bills Of Exchange
• Rule 41 Application

Changing Tides 17 (Proprietary) Limited N.O. v Ruiters and Another (1810/2012)

Changing Tides 17 (Proprietary) Limited N.O. v Ruiters and Another (1810/2012) [2017] ZAECPEHC 12 (16 February 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1810/2012

Judge

S M Mbenenge

The court found that the applicant had made out a case for judgment in terms of the settlement agreement under rule 41(4). The technical defences raised by the respondents were rejected as lacking merit and not prejudicial. The error regarding the date of signature was inadvertent and did not affect the validity or enforcement of the agreement. The respondents' constitutional right to adequate housing is not absolute and may be limited in circumstances where the limitation is reasonable and justifiable. The respondents defaulted on their payment obligations, and the applicant was entitled to…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Mortgage Bond Execution
• Rule 41 Application
• Constitutional Right To Housing

Lambson's Hire a Sales (Pty) Ltd v Markagente and Another (15921/09)

Lambson's Hire a Sales (Pty) Ltd v Markagente and Another (15921/09) [2012] ZAGPPHC 56 (16 April 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

15921/09

Judge

Vorster

The High Court made a settlement agreement an order of court and granted judgment in terms of it, rejecting a Rule 41(1) objection.

• Settlement Agreement
• Rule 41 Application
• Specific Performance
• Enforcement Of Court Order
• Civil-procedure
• Settlement-agreement

Liberty Group Ltd v Loader and Another (67241/2010)

Liberty Group Ltd v Loader and Another (67241/2010) [2011] ZAGPPHC 211 (8 December 2011)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

67241/2010

Judge

BAM

The High Court held that the respondents, having withdrawn their action, must pay the costs, including attorney-and-client costs for related applications.

• Withdrawal Of Action
• Costs Award
• Attorney And Client Scale
• Rule 41 Application
• Withdrawal-of-action
• Costs-award

Bothaville Supermark (Edms) Bpk v Nala Local Municipality (2498/2009)

Bothaville Supermark (Edms) Bpk v Nala Local Municipality (2498/2009) [2010] ZAFSHC 75 (22 April 2010)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2498/2009

Judge

H. M. Musi

The court held that a notice of withdrawal served after set-down was invalid without consent or leave, and dismissed the costs application with no order as to costs.

• Withdrawal Of Proceedings
• Rule 41 Application
• Costs Award
• Invalid Withdrawal Notice
• Withdrawal-of-proceedings
• Rule-41