South Africa Case Law

FTTX and Energy Warehouse (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2022/5522)

FTTX and Energy Warehouse (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2022/5522) [2025] ZAGPPHC 140 (31 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/5522

Judge

A J Le Grange

The High Court classified a fibre-optic splice closure tray under TH8538.90 as a part suitable for use with optical-fibre connectors, not as a plastic article.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Tariff Classification
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Statutory Appeal
• Tariff-classification
• Customs-and-excise

Auto Extreme CC v Lourens (A72/2024)

Auto Extreme CC v Lourens (A72/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1101 (25 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A72/2024

Judges

Moshoana, Lesufi

The court found that the respondent failed to prove the existence of a material defect in the motor vehicle as required by section 53 of the Consumer Protection Act. The defects alleged—steering concerns, air-conditioning issues, and overheating—were either remedied or not shown to substantially impair the utility or effectiveness of the vehicle. The vehicle was driven for a considerable distance after delivery, and no evidence established that it was rendered less acceptable than reasonably expected. The Tribunal erred in accepting speculative findings regarding the nature and materiality of…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Defective Goods
• Onus Of Proof
• Refund Entitlement
• Statutory Appeal

University and Allied Workers Union v Registrar of Labour Relations and Another (C222/2023)

University and Allied Workers Union v Registrar of Labour Relations and Another (C222/2023) [2023] ZALCCT 26 (23 May 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C222/2023

Judge

Moshoana

The court found that the applicant met the requirements for an urgent interim interdict to stay the de-registration pending the outcome of the statutory appeal. The de-registration would cause irreparable harm to the applicant, including loss of statutory council membership and bargaining power, which could not be remedied by re-registration. The court rejected the respondent's argument that prospects of success on appeal were a requirement for a stay, holding that the test is whether real and substantial justice requires a stay. The authority challenge was dismissed as not properly raised. T…

Source excerpt

• Trade Union De Registration
• Interim Interdict
• Urgent Application
• Statutory Appeal
• Collective Bargaining Rights

Chapman's Bay Estate Homeowners' Association v Lotter and Others (9387/2022)

Chapman's Bay Estate Homeowners' Association v Lotter and Others (9387/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 35 (24 February 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9387/2022

Judges

Van Zyl, Sher

High Court held that penalty levies in the homeowners’ constitution could not be imposed on subsequent owners who did not take transfer from the developer.

• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Interpretation Of Contracts
• Penalty Clauses
• Homeowners Association Rules
• Statutory Appeal
• Administrative Action

Kibo Property Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v Purported Board of Directors Amberfield Manor Hoa NPC and Others (45733/2021)

Kibo Property Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v Purported Board of Directors Amberfield Manor Hoa NPC and Others (45733/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 700 (25 October 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

45733/2021

Judge

Maumela

The court finds that the applicants have established urgency as substantial redress would not be attainable if relief is delayed. The respondents' term as directors expired in February 2020 under the MOI, and they have not been re-elected or lawfully continued in office. The CSOS order was granted without proper notice to the applicants and is subject to a pending statutory appeal. The respondents' reliance on the Companies Act and section 18 of the Superior Courts Act is misplaced, as the CSOS order is not a court order for appeal purposes. The requirements for interim interdictory relief ar…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Memorandum Of Incorporation
• Director Expiry
• Urgent Application
• Statutory Appeal

Mosikili v South African Board of Sheriffs (1629/20219)

Mosikili v South African Board of Sheriffs (1629/20219) [2021] ZAWCHC 129 (11 June 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1629/20219

Judge

CN Nziweni

The court held that the appeal in question is a statutory appeal under section 61 of the Sheriffs Act, not a civil appeal as contemplated by section 14 of the Superior Courts Act. The distinction is material, as statutory appeals from administrative bodies are generally heard by a single judge unless the statute provides otherwise. The court found that the respondent's interpretation of 'appeal' was incorrect in this context, and that the practice in the Division is to allocate such statutory appeals to a single judge for reasons of caseload management and judicial efficiency. The respondent'…

Source excerpt

• Statutory Appeal
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Composition Of Court
• Administrative Decision Review

Stenersen and Tulleken Administration CC v Linton Park Body Corporate and Another (A3034/2018)

Stenersen and Tulleken Administration CC v Linton Park Body Corporate and Another (A3034/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 387; 2020 (1) SA 651 (GJ) (24 October 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3034/2018

Judges

K E Matojane, L R Adams, P L Nobanda

The Full Court held that an appeal under section 57 of the CSOS Act is an appeal in the ordinary strict sense, limited to questions of law. The High Court is confined to the record before the adjudicator and the reasons for the order. The appeal does not permit a re-hearing of factual issues or the introduction of new evidence. The procedure for such appeals is to bring them by way of notice of appeal, setting out the grounds succinctly, and serving the notice on the respondent parties by the sheriff. Both the adjudicator and CSOS must be cited as respondents. The adjudicator or CSOS may file…

Source excerpt

• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Statutory Appeal
• Appeal On Question Of Law
• Practice Directives
• Adjudicator Powers

Municipal Employees' Pension Fund and Another v Mongwaketse and Others (47457/2017)

Municipal Employees' Pension Fund and Another v Mongwaketse and Others (47457/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 162 (4 June 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

47457/2017

Judge

WHG van der Linde

High Court upheld a pension funds adjudicator’s order refunding contributions to a fixed-term employee excluded by fund rules, and dismissed review and appeal.

• Pension Funds Act
• Jurisdiction Of Adjudicator
• Condictio Indebiti
• Prescription
• Enrichment
• Statutory Appeal

Body Corporate of Duroc Centre v Singh (AR99/18)

Body Corporate of Duroc Centre v Singh (AR99/18) [2019] ZAKZPHC 29; 2019 (6) SA 45 (KZP) (13 May 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR99/18

Judges

Steyn, Madondo

The court held that Dr Singh lacked the necessary locus standi to institute the dispute before the Community Schemes Ombud, as he was neither the owner of the units nor a materially affected party. The adjudicator failed to make a finding on standing before considering the merits, which was a material error of law. The statutory right to lodge a dispute is reserved for owners or those materially affected by the scheme, and mere authority from the owner does not confer standing. Consequently, the appeal was upheld on this narrow legal ground, and the adjudicator's order was set aside.

Source excerpt

• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Locus Standi
• Statutory Appeal
• Sectional Titles Schemes Management
• Judicial Review Analogy

Vervoer NV De Nys v De Kock NO and Others (19662/18)

Vervoer NV De Nys v De Kock NO and Others (19662/18) [2018] ZAWCHC 177 (18 December 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19662/18

Judge

Sher

The Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the application for a stay of execution of the adjudication order, as the property and relevant parties are located within its territorial area. The statutory right of appeal under section 57(3) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act is distinct from a traditional appeal, and the Circuit Court is competent to grant interim relief pending such an appeal. The respondents' arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction and competence were rejected, as the statutory framework and case law support the Court's authority to adjudicate the matter and…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Sectional Title Schemes
• Statutory Appeal
• Nuisance