South Africa Case Law

A.W obo M.U.W v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape (Quantum) (288/2019)

A.W obo M.U.W v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape (Quantum) (288/2019) [2025] ZAECBHC 15 (27 June 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

288/2019

Judge

Hartle

The court found that the defendant's reliance on an 'undertaking to pay' remedy, divorced from the public healthcare defence and unsupported by a properly pleaded case or factual evidence, was untenable. The defendant failed to demonstrate why the common law should be developed in the present circumstances to permit such a remedy, nor did she provide evidence that the agreed private healthcare costs were unreasonable. The court emphasized that development of the common law in this area requires a case-specific factual foundation and cannot be applied automatically from previous judgments. The…

Source excerpt

• Medical Negligence
• Future Medical Expenses
• Once And For All Rule
• Constitutional Development Of Common Law
• State Liability
• Undertaking To Pay

KM v Minister of Police and Others (1471/2025)

KM v Minister of Police and Others (1471/2025) [2025] ZANCHC 53 (13 June 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1471/2025

Judge

Williams

An urgent application by a murder eyewitness for monetary relief and special protection failed; the court held witness protection is a statutory remedy outside SAPS control.

• Right To Privacy
• Urgent Interdict
• Witness Protection
• State Liability
• Urgent-application
• Witness-protection

BN obo AN v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Eastern Cape (1013/2021)

BN obo AN v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Eastern Cape (1013/2021) [2025] ZAECMHC 20; [2025] 3 All SA 420 (ECM) (25 March 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1013/2021

Judge

Rusi

The court held that the statutory framework governing satisfaction of final court orders sounding in money against the State is clear: payment must be made within 30 days unless the parties agree to a different period. The defendant's reliance on inherent court powers under section 173 of the Constitution is misplaced, as those powers do not extend to substantive rights or override statutory requirements. The defendant failed to provide any evidentiary basis for its request to pay damages in instalments, such as details of financial constraints or the impact on healthcare delivery. The court…

Source excerpt

• Medical Negligence
• State Liability
• Damages Quantification
• Public Healthcare Defence
• Periodic Payments
• Constitutional Rights

M obo M v Member of Executive Council for Health, Gauteng Province (15141/21)

M obo M v Member of Executive Council for Health, Gauteng Province (15141/21) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1253 (29 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

15141/21

Judge

Nkoenyane

High Court medical negligence claim arising from a birth injury and cerebral palsy. The court found negligence, awarded R11 million, and ordered a trust for the child.

• Medical Negligence
• Cerebral Palsy
• Quantum Of Damages
• Expert Evidence
• State Liability
• Apportionment Of Liability

Delta Property Fund Limited v Member of the Executive Council Eastern Cape Department Public Works and Infrastructure and Others (265/2023)

Delta Property Fund Limited v Member of the Executive Council Eastern Cape Department Public Works and Infrastructure and Others (265/2023) [2024] ZAECBHC 24 (3 September 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

265/2023

Judge

B.B. Brody

The court found that the Departments of Social Development and Tourism, as well as the Premier, have a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings due to their beneficial occupation of the premises and the potential impact of the claim on the provincial budget. The lease agreement and correspondence referenced these departments, and their assets remain on the premises. The court held that necessity and convenience require their joinder, and that failure to join them would prejudice their rights. The court rejected the respondents' argument that they had no interest, noting their contin…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Lease Agreement
• State Liability
• Direct And Substantial Interest

Njuguna v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (3088/2024)

Njuguna v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (3088/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 64 (27 August 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3088/2024

Judge

Zono AJ

The High Court postponed an urgent detention-release application because the Head of Bizana Correctional Centre and the Minister of Correctional Services had not been joined.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Detention Review
• State Liability
• Refugees Act
• Urgent Interdict
• Joinder-of-parties

Maru Spaces Consortium v Gauteng Provincial Department of Infrastructure Development (2023/01880)

Maru Spaces Consortium v Gauteng Provincial Department of Infrastructure Development (2023/01880) [2024] ZAGPJHC 595 (25 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/01880

Judge

Barnes AJ

The High Court rejected a stay request based on arbitration preconditions and ordered the Gauteng department to pay for professional services, with interest and costs.

• Service Level Agreement
• Specific Performance
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Arbitration Clause
• State Liability
• Arbitration-clause

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Clackson Power(Pty) Ltd and Another (4438/2023)

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Clackson Power(Pty) Ltd and Another (4438/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 87; 2024 (5) SA 280 (WCC) (20 March 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4438/2023

Judge

DC Joubert AJ

The court found that the Minister's deponent, Mr Chaminuka, falsely claimed to be the Director-General of the Department of Water and Sanitation and failed to provide any explanation or ratification of his authority after being challenged. The Minister did not provide sufficient evidence that the proceedings were properly authorised, either by the Department or by the Minister. The court rejected the argument that authority could only be challenged under Rule 7(1), holding that the principles in Mall (Cape) and Tattersall remain applicable and that authority may be challenged on the papers. A…

Source excerpt

• Authority To Institute Proceedings
• Uniform Rule 7
• Special Costs Order
• Termination Of Contract
• State Liability

Halstead v MEC for Public Transport and Road Infrastructure of the Gauteng Department (40162/2019)

Halstead v MEC for Public Transport and Road Infrastructure of the Gauteng Department (40162/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1300 (3 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

40162/2019

Judge

R Sutherland

The court found that the defendant failed to establish any grounds for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a), as it was properly notified and elected not to participate in the proceedings. The arguments advanced in the application for leave to appeal were not those presented in the rescission application and amounted to an appeal on the merits rather than a procedural defect. The court held that absence under Rule 42(1)(a) requires exclusion, not voluntary non-attendance, and that the evidence before Segal AJ was sufficient to support the default judgment. The defendant's reliance on procedural irre…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Negligence
• Rule 42 Application
• State Liability
• Leave To Appeal

Matini v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Eastern Cape Province - Costs (169/2017)

Matini v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Eastern Cape Province - Costs (169/2017) [2023] ZAECBHC 31 (19 August 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

169/2017

Judge

Hartle

The High Court ordered the defendant to pay attorney-and-client costs for a Rule 30A application and party-and-party costs for removing applications from the roll.

• Costs Award
• Punitive Costs
• Case Management Directives
• Rule 30a Application
• Removal Of Application
• State Liability