South Africa Case Law

Molefe v Eskom Pension and Provident Fund and Others (93895/2019)

Molefe v Eskom Pension and Provident Fund and Others (93895/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 721 (11 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

93895/2019

Judges

R G Tolmay, M J Teffo, R Francis-Subbiah

The Full Court found that the court a quo erred in resolving the dispute regarding the amount repayable by Mr Molefe to the Fund solely on the papers, without proper consideration of the divergent expert actuarial evidence and the factual disputes regarding the calculation and flow of money. The court held that the matter required referral to oral evidence before a different judge to properly determine the quantum, as the actuaries' reports and supplementary affidavits revealed substantial disputes not amenable to resolution on affidavit. The court rejected the argument that the dispute had a…

Source excerpt

• Referral To Oral Evidence
• Expert Evidence
• Pension Fund Dispute
• Tax Refund Liability
• Costs Award
• Rule 41a Mediation

Toyota Financial Services (SA) Ltd v Siyakudumisathixo Trading and Enterprise CC and Another (2049/2024)

Toyota Financial Services (SA) Ltd v Siyakudumisathixo Trading and Enterprise CC and Another (2049/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 107 (10 September 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

2049/2024

Judge

T.V. Norman

The court found that the defendants raised bona fide defences that warrant consideration at trial. The jurisdictional objection is not spurious, as the defendants reside in Mthatha and the agreement was concluded in KwaZulu-Natal, with no clear consent to the jurisdiction of the Makhanda seat. The issue of whether the suretyship agreement was adequately explained to the second defendant is a triable issue, given the allegations of lack of disclosure and haste. The plaintiff's reliance on the certificate of balance was undermined by the absence of supporting documentation. The court held that…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Jurisdiction
• Suretyship
• National Credit Act Exclusion
• Rule 41a Mediation
• Certificate Of Balance

Nsele v Road Accident Fund and Another (2023/023750)

Nsele v Road Accident Fund and Another (2023/023750) [2024] ZAGPJHC 793 (12 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/023750

Judge

S Van Aswegen

The court finds that mediation under Rule 41A is a voluntary process and cannot be compelled by judicial order. The applicant had the opportunity to enforce compliance with Rule 41A(2)(b) up to the delivery of the plea, but failed to do so and proceeded with litigation, including pre-trial conferences and notices of set down. The applicant's conduct amounts to a waiver of the right to enforce compliance. Furthermore, the applicant did not comply with Rule 41A(2)(a) in the interlocutory application, which constitutes an irregular step. The court holds that, absent mutual consent, mediation can…

Source excerpt

• Rule 41a Mediation
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Waiver Of Rights
• Pre Trial Procedure
• Costs Orders

Lamroo (Pty) Ltd and Others v Theron and Others (3019/2023)

Lamroo (Pty) Ltd and Others v Theron and Others (3019/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 32 (8 February 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3019/2023

Judge

Chesiwe

The court granted an eviction order, holding that the respondents were unlawful occupiers after the farms were sold free of lease because the sale did not cover the mortgage debt.

• Eviction
• Huur Gaat Voor Koop
• Lease Termination
• Insolvency Sale
• Rule 41a Mediation
• Huur-gaat-voor-koop

Viljoen v Louw NO and Others (56/2020)

Viljoen v Louw NO and Others (56/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 489 (4 December 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

56/2020

Judge

P R Cronjé

The High Court held that the 2020 Will granted the widow a usufruct, but only subject to the sons’ approval, so her application was dismissed.

• Interpretation Of Wills
• Usufruct Rights
• Declaratory Relief
• Rule 41a Mediation
• Application To Strike Out
• Interpretation-of-wills

Braude NO and Another v Blackwood-Murray (42542/2018)

Braude NO and Another v Blackwood-Murray (42542/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1094 (2 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42542/2018

Judge

G Malindi

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action for failing to furnish ordered security for costs and refused a belated mediation request under Uniform Rule 41A.

• Security For Costs
• Dismissal Of Action
• Rule 47 4
• Rule 41a Mediation
• Security-for-costs
• Dismissal-of-action

Tau Lekoa Gold Mining Company v Nicolar (Pty) Ltd (055281/23)

Tau Lekoa Gold Mining Company v Nicolar (Pty) Ltd (055281/23) [2023] ZAGPJHC 907 (14 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

055281/23

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court granted urgent relief compelling a treatment contractor to provide accounting records, reports, and a full account under a mining treatment agreement.

• Specific Performance
• Contractual Accounting
• Urgent Interdict
• Arbitration Clause
• Jurisdiction
• Rule 41a Mediation

Tlang Ka Phulo Farming Project and Others v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others (UM 82/23)

Tlang Ka Phulo Farming Project and Others v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others (UM 82/23) [2023] ZANWHC 75 (7 June 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM 82/23

Judge

Reddy

The High Court struck an urgent farming-land application from the roll for lack of urgency and procedural defects, including non-joinder and Rule 41A non-compliance.

• Urgent Interdict
• Eviction Proceedings
• Self Created Urgency
• Non Joinder
• Rule 41a Mediation
• Locus Standi

Z.E v N.E and Another (10914/2022)

Z.E v N.E and Another (10914/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 21 (24 January 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10914/2022

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The court held that the first respondent's application for leave to appeal against the Rule 43 interim maintenance order was an irregular step, as such orders are not appealable under section 16(3) of the Superior Courts Act and confirmed by Constitutional Court authority. The respondent's reliance on exceptional circumstances was unsupported by any substantive grounds, and his argument regarding the Talaq and the existence of the marriage was rejected, as the validity of the marriage is a matter for the divorce court. The applicant's urgency and prejudice, particularly regarding the maintena…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Interim Maintenance
• Appealability Of Interim Orders
• Contempt Of Court
• Emoluments Attachment Order
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Rule 41a Mediation

Eskom Pension and Provident Fund v Molefe and Others (93895/2019)

Eskom Pension and Provident Fund v Molefe and Others (93895/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 775 (12 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

93895/2019

Judge

N Davis

Leave to appeal was refused in a pension quantification dispute involving Brian Molefe, with the court finding no reasonable prospects of success.

• Leave To Appeal
• Rule 41a Mediation
• Quantification Of Judgment
• Set Off
• Judicial Discretion
• Leave-to-appeal