South Africa Case Law

Special Investigating Unit and Others v Lekabe (GP09/2019; GP/22/2021)

Special Investigating Unit and Others v Lekabe (GP09/2019; GP/22/2021) [2025] ZAST 6 (4 March 2025)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP09/2019; GP/22/2021

Judge

M Victor

The Tribunal found that both the 7 and 11 February 2025 third party notices were defective and irregular, as they failed to comply with the requirements of the Uniform Rules of Court and the Tribunal Rules. The respondent's attempt to use a hybrid process by combining elements of both sets of rules was impermissible. The Tribunal held that service by email alone did not satisfy the procedural requirements for third party notices, and that the applicants, as dominus litis, were entitled to receive all relevant documents. The respondent's withdrawal notice did not specify which notice was being…

Source excerpt

• Irregular Proceedings
• Third Party Notice
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Special Tribunal Rules
• Costs Award

CRRC E-Loco Supply (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (37766/2021)

CRRC E-Loco Supply (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (37766/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1985 (13 December 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37766/2021

Judge

N Davis

Leave to appeal was refused in a tax dispute over SARS third-party notices issued without a final demand under section 179(6) of the Tax Administration Act.

• Tax Administration Act
• Third Party Notice
• Final Demand Requirement
• Audi Alterem Partem
• Mootness
• Costs Award

Engineering Council Of South Africa v Madonsela and Others

Engineering Council Of South Africa v Madonsela and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 265; 58061/2021 (28 March 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

58061/2021

Judge

MOTHA AJ

The court found that the defendant's plea and third party notice failed to contain the necessary averments to sustain a defence or cause of action. The Apportionment of Damages Act does not apply to contractual claims, rendering the defendant's reliance on apportionment and contribution legally incompetent. The defendant did not plead sufficient facts to establish a right to indemnification, nor did he set out the essential elements of compromise or provide material facts for lis pendens and prescription. The third party procedure was found to be inappropriate under the circumstances, and the…

Source excerpt

• Exception Procedure
• Third Party Notice
• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Apportionment Of Damages Act
• Compromise
• Prescription

CRRC E-LOCO SUPPLY (Pty) Ltd v Comissioner for the South African Revenue Service (37766/2021)

CRRC E-LOCO SUPPLY (Pty) Ltd v Comissioner for the South African Revenue Service (37766/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 527; 85 SATC 463 (18 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37766/2021

Judge

N Davis

The High Court dismissed CRRC’s review of SARS third-party notices issued without prior final demand under section 179(6) of the Tax Administration Act.

• Tax Debt Collection
• Third Party Notice
• Tax Administration Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Audi Alteram Partem
• State Capture Tax Investigation

Nondabula v Commissioner: SARS and Another (4062/2016)

Nondabula v Commissioner: SARS and Another (4062/2016) [2017] ZAECMHC 21; 2018 (3) SA 541 (ECM); 79 SATC 333 (27 June 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

4062/2016

Judge

Jolwana

The High Court held SARS unlawfully issued a third-party notice after failing to give the taxpayer the required notice and grounds for an additional assessment.

• Tax Administration Act
• Additional Assessment
• Third Party Notice
• Doctrine Of Legality
• Constitutional Values
• Tax-administration-act

Bunton and Another v Coetzee and Another (A423/2012)

Bunton and Another v Coetzee and Another (A423/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 553 (11 August 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A423/2012

Judges

N V Khumalo, M J Mushasha, V V Tlhapi

The High Court dismissed an appeal finding the second appellant lacked locus standi to bring a counterclaim or third party notice because he was not a defendant.

• Locus Standi
• Counterclaim Procedure
• Third Party Notice
• Joinder Of Parties
• Locus-standi
• Counterclaim-procedure

Absa Bank Ltd v South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union National Provident Fund and Others (10563/02)

Absa Bank Ltd v South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union National Provident Fund and Others (10563/02) [2013] ZAGPJHC 70 (8 March 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10563/02

Judge

FHD Van Oosten

The court granted leave to serve a third party notice after pleadings closed, finding a reasonable delay explanation and a prima facie indemnity claim.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Third Party Notice
• Settlement Agreement Interpretation
• Indemnity Claim
• Rectification Of Contract
• Third-party-notice

Vusela Construction (Pty) Ltd v Volker and Others (13813/07)

Vusela Construction (Pty) Ltd v Volker and Others (13813/07) [2011] ZAWCHC 303 (29 July 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13813/07

Judge

MIA

The High Court granted leave to serve third party and apportionment notices on the Road Accident Fund, and ordered the applicants to pay costs.

• Third Party Notice
• Apportionment Of Damages Act
• Costs Order
• Third-party-notice
• Apportionment-of-damages
• Costs-order

Tlale NO and Another v Momentum Group Ltd (3471/2007)

Tlale NO and Another v Momentum Group Ltd (3471/2007) [2011] ZAFSHC 30 (17 February 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3471/2007

Judge

C H G van der Merwe

Leave to appeal was refused after the court held that the third party notice was excipiable and did not properly plead damages or compliant relief.

• Exception Procedure
• Third Party Notice
• Leave To Appeal
• Damages Claim
• Pleading Requirements
• Leave-to-appeal

Northern Lights Trading 123 (Edms) Bpk v ACM Shopfitter Bk (22532/2007)

Northern Lights Trading 123 (Edms) Bpk v ACM Shopfitter Bk (22532/2007) [2010] ZAGPPHC 583 (16 February 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22532/2007

Judge

Davel AJ

The court held the respondent’s denials were untenable, enforced payment for shopfitting work, dismissed the third-party procedure, and then granted leave to appeal.

• Motion Proceedings
• Third Party Notice
• Shopfitting Agreement
• Indemnity
• Disputes Of Fact
• Motion-proceedings