South Africa Case Law

Prithilal v Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd and Another (CCT 290/24)

Prithilal v Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd and Another (CCT 290/24) [2025] ZACC 5; 2025 (8) BCLR 921 (CC) (24 April 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 290/24

Judges

Maya, Madlanga, Dambuza, Goosen, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Opperman, Rogers, Theron, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court's unexplained award of punitive attorney and client costs against the applicant was a constitutional matter. The absence of reasons for the costs order violated the applicant's rights under section 34 of the Constitution and undermined the rule of law, accountability, and transparency. The transcript of oral argument did not provide any justification for the punitive costs order, and the High Court failed to exercise its discretion judicially. The Court found that the timing of the joinder application did not indicate any impropriety by the ap…

Source excerpt

• Punitive Costs
• Joinder
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Section 34 Constitution
• Prescription Act
• Judicial Reasoning

Sekoati v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others (36232/2013)

Sekoati v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others (36232/2013) [2025] ZAGPPHC 198 (24 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

36232/2013

Judge

M Snyman

The High Court held that summons was not validly served after the deceased’s chosen domicilium lapsed, rendering the default judgment and later sale in execution invalid.

• Service Of Process
• Default Judgment
• Sale In Execution
• Domicilium Citandi Et Executandi
• Setting Aside Transfer
• Section 34 Constitution

South African Correctional Services Workers Union obo Kasper v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (PA06/22)

South African Correctional Services Workers Union obo Kasper v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (PA06/22) [2024] ZALAC 72; [2025] 3 BLLR 247 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 954 (LAC) (18 December 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

PA06/22

Judges

Van Niekerk JA, Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Jolwana AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that non-party unions or employees bound by a collective agreement may refer interpretation disputes under section 24 of the LRA.

• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Access To Dispute Resolution
• Section 24 Lra
• Section 34 Constitution
• Collective-agreement-interpretation

Cartello Motors CC v Styger (054884/2023)

Cartello Motors CC v Styger (054884/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1247 (2 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

054884/2023

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court granted a punitive costs order after the respondent disposed of disputed property during litigation, frustrating the applicant’s vindicatory claim.

• Punitive Costs Order
• Vindicatory Relief
• Mala Fide Conduct
• Section 34 Constitution
• Punitive-costs-order
• Vindicatory-relief

Waste Group (Pty) Ltd v SATAWU and Others (JS 641/13)

Waste Group (Pty) Ltd v SATAWU and Others (JS 641/13) [2023] ZALCJHB 74 (23 March 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 641/13

Judge

T Govender

The Court found that the applicant had met the requirements for rescission under Rule 16A(1)(a) of the Labour Court Rules read with section 165(a) of the Labour Relations Act, as the default orders were granted in its absence and the notice of set down was not properly brought to its attention. The applicant's lack of diligence and failure to explain the litigation gap were noted, but did not preclude rescission given the procedural irregularity. The Court held that access to justice under section 34 of the Constitution required that the applicant be allowed to defend its case at trial. There…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Procedural Fairness
• Section 34 Constitution
• Section 23 Constitution

Ramolotja v Motaung and Others (89/22)

Ramolotja v Motaung and Others (89/22) [2022] ZALMPPHC 62 (25 November 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

89/22

Judges

Kganyago, Naude-Odendaal

The magistrate committed a gross irregularity by preparing and commencing delivery of a written judgment before affording the parties an opportunity to address the court on the merits. This conduct violated the audi alteram partem rule and section 34 of the Constitution, as the parties' right to a fair hearing was compromised. The subsequent opportunity to address the court, given only after the magistrate had begun delivering judgment, was insufficient to cure the irregularity, as the magistrate had already formed a view on the matter. The irregularity tainted the entire proceedings, necessi…

Source excerpt

• Audi Alteram Partem
• Fair Hearing
• Magistrates Court Review
• Section 34 Constitution

Fisher v Etchell and Another (15938/2020)

Fisher v Etchell and Another (15938/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 765 (1 December 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

15938/2020

Judge

G Nel

High Court review set aside a magistrate’s refusal to recuse herself in a protection order matter, finding a reasonable apprehension of bias.

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias
• Section 34 Constitution
• Review Of Magistrate Decision
• Judicial-recusal
• Reasonable-apprehension-of-bias

Van Rooyen N.O and Another v Mokwena and Others (2064/2021)

Van Rooyen N.O and Another v Mokwena and Others (2064/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 23 (18 May 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

2064/2021

Judge

Makume

The High Court set aside an urgent order granted without hearing argument on the merits, finding a breach of audi alteram partem and section 34.

• Audi Alteram Partem
• Section 34 Constitution
• Urgent Interdict
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Fair Hearing
• Judicial Misdirection

Rhodes University and Others v Zulu (1997/2018)

Rhodes University and Others v Zulu (1997/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 135 (17 December 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1997/2018

Judge

NG Beshe

The High Court refused to stay a student’s review application pending security for costs, holding that it would unjustifiably limit access to court.

• Security For Costs
• Access To Court
• Rule 47 Uniform Rules
• Section 34 Constitution
• Security-for-costs
• Access-to-court

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