South Africa Case Law

Prudential Authority of South Africa v Financial Services Tribunal and Others (2023/058536)

Prudential Authority of South Africa v Financial Services Tribunal and Others (2023/058536) [2025] ZAGPPHC 16; 2025 (3) SA 597 (GP) (15 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/058536

Judge

Potterill

The Court found that the Prudential Authority has locus standi to bring a review application under the FSR-Act, as the statute expressly includes the decision-maker as a party entitled to review. The respondents did not contravene section 14 of the Insurance Act, as the Act does not require prior approval for appointments, and retrospective approval regularises the appointments. The Financial Services Tribunal acted within its powers to substitute the administrative penalty for contravention of section 16(1), as the PA failed to specify the calculation of penalties and the Tribunal considered…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review Of Tribunal Decision
• Administrative Penalties
• Insurance Regulation
• Locus Standi
• Transitional Provisions
• Statutory Interpretation

Lategan and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Another (314/2022)

Lategan and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Another (314/2022) [2024] ZASCA 74; 2024 (2) SACR 227 (SCA) (10 May 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

314/2022

Judges

Molemela, Hughes, Weiner, Windell, Keightley

Sections 58, 59, and 60 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 are procedural in nature and do not affect the substantive rights of accused persons. These provisions apply to future criminal proceedings, even where the underlying offences were committed before the Act's commencement but prosecuted thereafter. The presumption against retrospectivity does not bar the application of procedural rules to future trials. The regional magistrate's order to remove these sections from the charge sheet was a gross irregularity, properly subject to review rathe…

Source excerpt

• Sexual Offences
• Retrospective Application
• Procedural Vs Substantive Law
• Review Vs Appeal
• Criminal Evidence
• Transitional Provisions

Lord's view Property Owners Association NPC v Member of the Executive Council for the Economic Development, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Development Gauteng Province and Others (43464/2020)

Lord's view Property Owners Association NPC v Member of the Executive Council for the Economic Development, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Development Gauteng Province and Others (43464/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 956 (29 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

43464/2020

Judge

N Manoim

The court held that the construction and operation of Cell 7 at the Chloorkop Landfill Site were lawfully authorised under the variation provisions of the 1997 licence, which remains valid by virtue of transitional arrangements in the National Environmental Management: Waste Act. The new environmental legislation does not expressly require a new licence or amendment for such developments where the licence variation procedure is followed. The process met the required pollution control standards, and the lack of public participation did not render the approval unlawful, especially as the appeal…

Source excerpt

• Waste Management Licensing
• Public Participation
• Legitimate Expectation
• Environmental Impact Assessment
• Transitional Provisions
• Property Rights

Crocodile River West Irrigation Board v Allies Farms SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (4389/2019)

Crocodile River West Irrigation Board v Allies Farms SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (4389/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 63 (29 November 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

4389/2019

Judge

E M Makgoba

The High Court granted an irrigation board leave to amend its particulars of claim, holding the proposed pleading was not excipiable under the National Water Act.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Water Use Charges
• Transitional Provisions
• Exception Procedure
• Irrigation Board Powers
• Amendment-of-pleadings

Director of Public Prosecutions Western Cape v Regional Magistrate Wynberg and Others (8999/2020)

Director of Public Prosecutions Western Cape v Regional Magistrate Wynberg and Others (8999/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 201; [2022] 1 All SA 154 (WCC); 2022 (1) SACR 8 (WCC) (13 October 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8999/2020

Judges

Nziweni, T C Ndita

The High Court held that sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Sexual Offences Act are procedural and apply to sexual offence prosecutions instituted after commencement.

• Retrospective Application Of Statutes
• Sexual Offences
• Procedural Vs Substantive Law
• Transitional Provisions
• Fair Trial Rights
• Retrospective-application-of-statutes

Eksteen v Road Accident Fund (873/2019)

Eksteen v Road Accident Fund (873/2019) [2021] ZASCA 48; [2021] 3 All SA 46 (SCA); 2021 (8) BCLR 844 (SCA) (21 April 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

873/2019

Judges

Petse, Makgoka, Dlodlo, Ledwaba, Poyo-Dlwati

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund (Transitional Provisions) Act 15 of 2012 requires a claimant who has instituted an action in a magistrate’s court to first withdraw that action before instituting proceedings in the high court. The 60-day period within which to institute the high court action is triggered only upon withdrawal of the magistrate’s court action. The court found that the appellant failed to withdraw the magistrate’s court action before instituting the high court action, resulting in the special plea of lis alibi pendens being prop…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Prescription
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Statutory Interpretation
• Transitional Provisions
• Serious Injury Assessment

South African Legal Practice Council v Alves and Others (1255/2019)

South African Legal Practice Council v Alves and Others (1255/2019) [2020] ZASCA 170; 2021 (4) SA 158 (SCA) (14 December 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1255/2019

Judges

Maya, Saldulker, Plasket, Eksteen, Unterhalter

Section 115 of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 is not limited to applications for admission pending at the time of the Act's commencement. It preserves the right of any person who qualified for admission as an advocate, attorney, conveyancer, or notary prior to 1 November 2018 to be admitted and enrolled as such under the Act, without temporal limitation. The High Court retains jurisdiction to order conversion of enrolment from attorney to advocate where the practitioner qualifies for admission under the Act. The Legal Practice Council's interpretation requiring a pending application or add…

Source excerpt

• Legal Practitioners Admission
• Legal Practice Act
• Conversion Of Enrolment
• Transitional Provisions
• Statutory Interpretation

Eksteen v Road Accident Fund (4972/2016)

Eksteen v Road Accident Fund (4972/2016) [2020] ZAFSHC 181 (22 October 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4972/2016

Judges

MUSI, LOUBSER, MURRAY

The High Court granted condonation and leave to appeal over conflicting interpretations of section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund (Transitional Provisions) Act.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Prescription
• Lis Pendens
• Transitional Provisions
• Leave To Appeal
• Superior Courts Act

Raumix Aggregates (Pty) Ltd v Richter Sand CC and Another; Steeledale (Pty) Ltd v Gorrie; Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank v Sondamase; SA Taxi Impact Fund (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Tau; Masango Attorneys v Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa and Another; Hartless (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Schneider; Nedbank v Chibuye and Others; Absa Bank Limited v Mayer Familie Trust and Others (2019/8153; 2019/6412; 2017/14846X; 2019/12142; 2019/10245; 2019/7918; 2019/14870; 2018/37011)

Raumix Aggregates (Pty) Ltd v Richter Sand CC and Another; Steeledale (Pty) Ltd v Gorrie; Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank v Sondamase; SA Taxi Impact Fund (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Tau; Masango Attorneys v Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa and Another; Hartless (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Schneider; Nedbank v Chibuye and Others; Absa Bank Limited v Mayer Familie Trust and Others (2019/8153; 2019/6412; 2017/14846X; 2019/12142; 2019/10245; 2019/7918; 2019/14870; 2018/37011) [2019] ZAGPJHC 386; 2020 (1) SA 623 (GJ…

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/8153; 2019/6412; 2017/14846X; 2019/12142; 2019/10245; 2019/7918; 2019/14870; 2018/37011

Judges

K E Matojane, R Keightley, S Yacoob

The Full Court held that the amended Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court does not apply retrospectively to pending summary judgment applications initiated before 1 July 2019. The Court found that the right to have a summary judgment application heard under the old Rule is substantive, and retrospective application would extinguish this right and render pending applications nugatory. The Rule itself contains no transitional provisions or indication of retrospective intent. The Interpretation Act supports the principle that amendments do not affect pending proceedings unless expressly stated.…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Retrospective Application Of Rules
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Statutory Interpretation
• Transitional Provisions

Raumix Aggregates (Pty) Ltd v Richter Sand CC and Another; Steeledale (Pty) Ltd v Gorrie; Firstrand Bank Limited t/a WESBANK v Sondamase; SA Taxi Impact Fund (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Tau; Masango Attorneys v Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa and Another; Hartless (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Schneider; Nedbank v Chibuye and Others; Absa Bank Limited v Mayer Family Trust and Others (2019/8153, 2019/6412, 2017/14846X, 2019/12142, 2019/14229, 2019/10245, 2019/7918, 2019/14870, 2018/37011)

Raumix Aggregates (Pty) Ltd v Richter Sand CC and Another; Steeledale (Pty) Ltd v Gorrie; Firstrand Bank Limited t/a WESBANK v Sondamase; SA Taxi Impact Fund (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Tau; Masango Attorneys v Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa and Another; Hartless (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Schneider; Nedbank v Chibuye and Others; Absa Bank Limited v Mayer Family Trust and Others (2019/8153, 2019/6412, 2017/14846X, 2019/12142, 2019/14229, 2019/10245, 2019/7918, 2019/14870, 2018/37011) [2019] ZAGPPHC 500 (4 Octobe…

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2019/8153, 2019/6412, 2017/14846X, 2019/12142, 2019/14229, 2019/10245, 2019/7918, 2019/14870, 2018/37011

Judges

K E Matojane, R Keightley, S Yacoob

The Full Court held that the amended Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court does not apply retrospectively to pending summary judgment applications initiated before 1 July 2019. The absence of transitional provisions and the substantive right of applicants to have their applications heard under the old Rule indicate that the drafters did not intend retrospective application. Applying the new Rule to pending matters would extinguish existing rights and render prior steps abortive, contrary to principles of fairness, legal certainty, and access to courts. The Interpretation Act supports this con…

Source excerpt

• Retrospective Application Of Rules
• Summary Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Statutory Interpretation
• Transitional Provisions