Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
EB Taxpayer v Commissioner of South African Revenue Service (IT 46098) [2024] ZATC 18 (4 December 2024)
The Tax Court held that the parties agreed to suspend litigation during settlement talks, so the taxpayer’s default judgment application was premature.
FirstRand Bank Limited v Mafuna (42356/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 821 (25 July 2023)
The High Court granted FirstRand Bank final sequestration of Eric Mafuna’s estate, finding acts of insolvency under the Insolvency Act and sufficient advantage to creditors.
National Credit Regulator v Cilliers (NCT/78394/2017/57(1)) [2019] ZANCT 100 (28 June 2019)
The National Consumer Tribunal postponed the matter sine die to allow settlement talks, with directions for confirming settlement or filing withdrawal by 26 July 2019.
National Credit Regulator v Loans Acceptable Funding (Pty) Ltd (NCT/122594/2018/140(1)) [2019] ZANCT 39 (7 April 2019)
The Tribunal postponed a default hearing to allow settlement talks or an answering affidavit, with deadlines set and no costs order made.
KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments 17 (Pty) Ltd (1135/2016) [2017] ZASCA 98; [2017] 3 All SA 739 (SCA); 2017 (6) SA 55 (SCA) (6 July 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an acknowledgment of liability made in a without prejudice settlement communication cannot be admitted in evidence for the purpose of interrupting prescription under section 14 of the Prescription Act. The court reasoned that the without prejudice rule is founded on public policy and contractual principles, encouraging parties to negotiate freely without fear that admissions will be used against them. Recognizing an exception for prescription would undermine the rule's effectiveness and create legal and practical uncertainty. The court found that the Pres…
Source excerpt
Standard Bank of South Africa v Mahlangu (19879/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 661 (29 July 2016)
The High Court rescinded a default judgment where settlement talks were ongoing and the applicant reasonably believed notice would be given before any hearing.
KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments 17 (Pty) Ltd (9861/13, 16844/07) [2016] ZAWCHC 83; [2016] 3 All SA 832 (WCC); 2016 (5) SA 485 (WCC) (24 June 2016)
The court held that the Webber Wentzel letter was written without prejudice as part of settlement negotiations and thus protected by the without prejudice rule. The law does not recognize an exception allowing such communications to be used as acknowledgments interrupting prescription, either under South African or English law as at 31 May 1961. The acknowledgment of liability in the letter was not wholly unconnected to the settlement proposal and cannot be isolated from the protected communication. Therefore, the letter is inadmissible for the purpose of interrupting prescription, and KLD's…
Source excerpt
White v Minister of Safety & Security and Others (EL 322/2003, ECD 720/2003) [2012] ZAECELLC 3 (2 March 2012)
The court ordered the respondent to consider and answer a settlement proposal within 15 days after an unexplained delay in a long-running damages action.
Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (2011/07680) [2011] ZAGPJHC 241; 2014 (1) SA 191 (GSJ) (18 November 2011)
High Court discovery ruling in the Please Call Me litigation, holding that electronic records and some quantum-related documents were discoverable.
Mabaso v Road Accident Fund (940/2009) [2011] ZAFSHC 215; 2012 (2) 656 (FB) (21 September 2011)
The court held that costs relating to quantum cannot be claimed until quantum is settled, the defendant consents to witnesses or the court orders such, and the taxing master fixes the qualifying expenses. The taxing master was correct in disallowing these items at this stage. Regarding settlement negotiations, the court found that all time spent, including consultations with clients, forms part of necessary party and party costs and should not be separated as attorney and client costs. The taxing master acted on a wrong principle by disallowing a portion of these costs. For waiting time at co…
Source excerpt
Explore more
