South Africa Case Law

Affirm Manufacturing Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Rototank v Dasel Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another (2025/054421)

Affirm Manufacturing Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Rototank v Dasel Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another (2025/054421) [2025] ZAGPPHC 529 (23 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025/054421

Judge

Khashane Manamela

The court found that the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the advertising space at Plot 148 under a lease agreement, and was unlawfully deprived of possession by the first respondent, who resorted to self-help without a valid cancellation clause or mutual agreement. The respondent's defence of impossibility was rejected, as restoration of possession of the advertising space itself is not rendered impossible by the destruction of signage or third-party occupation; the applicant seeks possession of the space, not the exact signage. The court held that the requirements for…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Unlawful Deprivation Of Possession
• Lease Termination
• Restoration Of Possession
• Self Help
• Urgent Interdict

Cossadianos and Others v Nel and Others (2024-104634)

Cossadianos and Others v Nel and Others (2024-104634) [2025] ZAGPPHC 284 (17 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-104634

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that Mr. Nel's unilateral exclusion of Mr. Cossadianos from the management and affairs of the companies, without recourse to legal process, constituted oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct under section 163 of the Companies Act. The respondents' justification based on allegations of fraud did not entitle them to resort to self-help, as disputes must be resolved through the courts. The applicants retained locus standi despite the respondents' attempt to cancel their interests, as such cancellation was not effected through due process. The deadlock and breakdown of trust…

Source excerpt

• Oppressive Conduct
• Section 163 Companies Act
• Shareholder Remedies
• Director Exclusion
• Self Help
• Valuation Of Shares

Bojosinyane v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Others (2025/013682)

Bojosinyane v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Others (2025/013682) [2025] ZALCJHB 87; (2025) 46 ILJ 1350 (LC) (28 February 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/013682

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court found that the Municipality's unilateral termination of the applicant's contract amounted to unlawful self-help and was void ab initio. The Municipality was not entitled to disregard the contract based on its own belief of invalidity; only a court of law can set aside such an appointment. The principle of legality and the rule of law require that public officials follow proper judicial processes rather than resorting to self-help. The applicant's contract of employment remains valid and in force, and he is entitled to resume his duties as municipal manager. The Labour Court h…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Termination
• Self Help
• Municipal Manager Appointment
• Specific Performance
• Principle Of Legality

Fire and Ice Fitness (Pty) Ltd and Others v Dansabe Trading 17 (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/121455)

Fire and Ice Fitness (Pty) Ltd and Others v Dansabe Trading 17 (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/121455) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1088 (25 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/121455

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court found that none of the applicants had standing to seek an interim interdict, as Fire and Ice Fitness (Pty) Ltd had been finally deregistered and ceased to exist as a legal entity. The effect of deregistration is clear: the company cannot authorise anyone to act on its behalf or claim rights before the court. The executors of the deceased directors' estates also lack standing, as the company no longer exists. While the respondents' conduct in locking the premises was unfortunate and may have prejudiced the applicants, the application as pleaded could not succeed. The court noted that…

Source excerpt

• Company Deregistration
• Interim Interdict
• Legal Standing
• Self Help
• Arrear Rental
• Remedies Under Companies Act

MM v State Security Agency and Others (2024-066082)

MM v State Security Agency and Others (2024-066082) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1033 (30 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-066082

Judge

de Vos

The court found that section 21(3)(a) of the Government Employees Pension Fund Law does not empower the Agency to unilaterally determine and deduct alleged debts from an employee's pension benefits without due process or a court order. The Agency's interpretation was rejected as inconsistent with the text of the statute and constitutional principles, including the right to equality and access to courts. The court held that the Agency's conduct amounted to unlawful self-help, violating the rule of law and fundamental rights. The applicant had exhausted all internal remedies and faced immediate…

Source excerpt

• Government Employees Pension Fund Law
• Self Help
• Constitutional Rights
• Interdict
• Rule Of Law

Kamiesberg Local Municipality and Another v Koingnaas Belastingbetalersvereniging and Another (2609/2021)

Kamiesberg Local Municipality and Another v Koingnaas Belastingbetalersvereniging and Another (2609/2021) [2024] ZANCHC 14 (16 February 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2609/2021

Judge

Mamosebo

The court found that KBBV lacked legal standing to bring the counter-application as it failed to comply with its own constitution's requirements for committee composition and quorum, rendering its actions a nullity. Even if standing were established, KBBV's conduct in undertaking municipal repairs and invoicing the municipality without formal procurement processes was unlawful and amounted to impermissible self-help. The Constitution and subsidiary legislation vest service delivery responsibilities in municipalities, and any intervention must follow the hierarchical procedures set out in sect…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Service Delivery
• Locus Standi
• Final Interdict
• Self Help
• Constitutional Mandate
• Negotiorum Gestio

Dhladhla v Mkhonto (A23 / 2023)

Dhladhla v Mkhonto (A23 / 2023) [2024] ZAMPMHC 5 (15 January 2024)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A23 / 2023

Judges

TV Ratshibvumo, MBG Langa

High Court appeal confirming a spoliation order over household goods and a residence, holding that possession—not ownership—was decisive and that the 11-month delay was acceptable.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Unlawful Dispossession
• Possession
• Delay In Spoliation Application
• Self Help
• Mandament-van-spolie

BG Bojosinyane and Associates v The Sheriff Vryburg and Another (1072/2022)

BG Bojosinyane and Associates v The Sheriff Vryburg and Another (1072/2022) [2023] ZASCA 174 (8 December 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1072/2022

Judges

Makgoka, Matojane, Weiner, Koen, Chetty

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a sheriff may not demand upfront payment for anticipated fees before serving process, absent magistrate authorisation.

• Magistrates Court Act
• Sheriffs Fees
• Mandatory Interdict
• Self Help
• Return Of Service
• Civil-procedure

Koch Street Joubert Park CC v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan and Another (04154/2023)

Koch Street Joubert Park CC v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan and Another (04154/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1417 (7 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

04154/2023

Judge

Pearse AJ

Urgent High Court matter over unlawful electricity disconnection and reconnection at a Johannesburg residential property; court ordered reconnection and postponed residual issues.

• Urgent Interdict
• Electricity Supply Dispute
• Contempt Of Court
• Self Help
• Rule Nisi
• Urgent-interdict

Samonty Projects (Pty) Ltd v Persevcon Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Others (UM105/22)

Samonty Projects (Pty) Ltd v Persevcon Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Others (UM105/22) [2023] ZANWHC 222 (27 November 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM105/22

Judge

Mfenyana

The court found that the applicant was contractually entitled to payment of R652,310.37, representing 90% of the invoice amount paid by the Department of Rural Development to the first respondent. The respondents' refusal to pay, based on an alleged set-off and breach, was unsupported by evidence and amounted to unlawful self-help. The respondents failed to afford the applicant an opportunity to remedy any alleged breach, as required by the agreement, and the main contract with the department had not been terminated. The court held that the respondents could not lawfully withhold payment and…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Self Help
• Contractual Entitlement
• Costs Award