South Africa Case Law

Aptitude Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd v The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (251/2024)

Aptitude Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd v The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (251/2024) [2025] ZASCA 72 (30 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

251/2024

Judges

Mocumie, Mokgohloa, Coppin, Tolmay, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal as moot after a tender suspension order had lapsed. It held there was no live issue warranting merits judgment.

• Mootness
• Suspension Of Invalidity Order
• Tender Review
• Superior Courts Act Section 16
• Public Importance Exception
• Tender-review

Public Protector of South Africa v Chairperson of the Section 194(1) Committee and Others (627/2023)

Public Protector of South Africa v Chairperson of the Section 194(1) Committee and Others (627/2023) [2024] ZASCA 131; [2024] 4 All SA 693 (SCA); 2025 (4) SA 428 (SCA) (1 October 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

627/2023

Judges

Ponnan, Nicholls, Mothle, Masipa, Dippenaar

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appeal was not properly before it, as Ms Mkhwebane had been removed from office and lacked authority to prosecute the appeal in the name of the Public Protector. Uniform Rule 15 does not permit substitution of parties after judgment or at the appellate stage, and the attempted substitution by mere notice was ineffective. The appeal was moot, as the underlying controversy had been overtaken by subsequent events: the Committee completed its work, the National Assembly adopted the recommendation, the President removed Ms Mkhwebane, and a new Public Prote…

Source excerpt

• Change Of Parties
• Uniform Rule 15
• Locus Standi
• Mootness
• Superior Courts Act Section 16
• Declaratory Relief

Minister of South African Police Services and Others v Mudolo (A274/12022)

Minister of South African Police Services and Others v Mudolo (A274/12022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 869 (17 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A274/12022

Judges

Janse van Nieuwenhuizen, Kubushi, Collis

The court held that the appeal had become moot due to the setting aside of the underlying Magistrates Court order and the dismissal of subsequent appeals. The only remaining issue was the cost order. The appellants failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by section 16(2)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act to justify setting aside the cost order. The court emphasized that fairness or perceived unconscionable results are not the test; only truly exceptional circumstances warrant deviation from the general rule that costs alone do not justify hearing a moot appeal. Both parties…

Source excerpt

• Mootness
• Costs On Appeal
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Superior Courts Act Section 16

Poulter v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (A88/2023)

Poulter v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (A88/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 178; 87 SATC 287 (28 June 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A88/2023

Judges

Binns-Ward, Nuku, Slingers

The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judgment in the principal proceedings was a decision 'on appeal to it' within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act. Appeals from the tax court to the High Court are appeals in the ordinary strict sense, and any further appeal from the High Court's decision in such matters requires special leave from the Supreme Court of Appeal. The statutory framework of the Tax Administration Act and the procedural rules applicable to appeals…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Tax Court Jurisdiction
• Superior Courts Act Section 16
• Tax Administration Act Section 133

Dhlamini v Schumann, Van den Heever and Slabbert Inc and Others (505/2021)

Dhlamini v Schumann, Van den Heever and Slabbert Inc and Others (505/2021) [2023] ZASCA 79 (29 May 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

505/2021

Judges

Dambuza, Mabindla-Boqwana, Basson

The SCA held the appeal was moot on the merits in an Anton Piller matter, but it set aside the high court’s costs order and ordered each party to pay its own costs.

• Anton Piller Order
• Mootness
• Costs Award
• Superior Courts Act Section 16
• Class Action Procedure
• Anton-piller-order

Selota v SALPC (658/2020)

Selota v SALPC (658/2020) [2021] ZASCA 169 (3 December 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

658/2020

Judges

Saldulker, Mathopo, Van der Merwe, Mokgohloa, Weiner

The Supreme Court of Appeal struck the matter off the roll, holding that the declarator sought about a Fidelity Fund certificate would have no practical effect.

• Fidelity Fund Certificate
• Legal Practitioners Regulation
• Practical Effect Of Appeal
• Superior Courts Act Section 16
• Fidelity-fund-certificate
• Practical-effect-of-appeal

Panayiotou v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Others (248/2016)

Panayiotou v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Others (248/2016) [2017] ZASCA 12 (17 March 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

248/2016

Judges

Ponnan, Shongwe, Petse, Zondi, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over a refused liquor licence because the licence had already been issued and the appeal could no longer have practical effect.

• Liquor Licensing
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Public Interest
• Barriers To Entry
• Superior Courts Act Section 16
• Competition In Liquor Trade

Legal-Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (1055/13)

Legal-Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (1055/13) [2014] ZASCA 141; 2015 (2) SA 568 (SCA); [2014] 4 All SA 570 (SCA) (26 September 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1055/13

Judges

Ponnan, Maya, Swain, Zondi, Fourie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, following the settlement agreement between the parties, there was no longer any live dispute or lis requiring adjudication. The appeal was dismissed in terms of s 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, as any judgment would have no practical effect or result. The court found that, as a matter of principle, where all disputes have been resolved by agreement, it has no discretion to entertain the appeal. Even if such discretion existed, the circumstances did not warrant its exercise, as the case did not raise a discrete legal issue of public importance li…

Source excerpt

• Superior Courts Act Section 16
• Mootness
• State Funded Legal Representation
• Equality Rights
• Commissions Of Inquiry