South Africa Case Law

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

Mahomed N.O and Others v Al-Al Shaik N.O and Others (2023/007716)

Mahomed N.O and Others v Al-Al Shaik N.O and Others (2023/007716) [2024] ZAGPJHC 190 (4 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/007716

Judge

Adams

The High Court dismissed a Rule 7(1) challenge to respondents’ authority, finding the joint proxy valid and sufficiently authenticated under Rule 63(4).

• Authority Of Attorney
• Authentication Of Documents
• Trusteeship Dispute
• Uniform Rule 7
• Uniform Rule 63
• Civil-procedure

RML Lighting (Pty) Ltd v Vangiflash (Pty) Ltd (13682/22)

RML Lighting (Pty) Ltd v Vangiflash (Pty) Ltd (13682/22) [2023] ZAKZPHC 118 (19 October 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

13682/22

Judge

Annandale

The respondent's challenge to the applicant's authority to institute eviction proceedings was procedurally defective, as it was not raised by notice in terms of Uniform Rule 7(1) but rather in the answering affidavit and outside the prescribed period. Binding authority from ANC Umvoti requires that all challenges to authority, whether substantive or technical, must be pursued under Rule 7 and not in application papers. The respondent, being legally represented, failed to follow the correct procedure and thus its challenge is fatal. On the merits, the respondent provided no substantive defence…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 7
• Authority To Institute Proceedings
• Eviction Of Commercial Tenant
• Company Resolution
• Attorney And Client Costs

Rural Maintenance (Pty) Ltd and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Another (2023/027739)

Rural Maintenance (Pty) Ltd and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Another (2023/027739) [2023] ZAGPJHC 354 (20 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/027739

Judge

E Molahlehi

Urgent application for relief over self-load shedding was dismissed because the Municipality’s authority to litigate was not proved under Rule 7.

• Authority To Institute Proceedings
• Uniform Rule 7
• Municipal Powers
• Interim Relief
• Self Load Shedding
• Authority-to-institute-proceedings

Eriksson v Hollard Insurance Company Limited and Others (2021/45339)

Eriksson v Hollard Insurance Company Limited and Others (2021/45339) [2023] ZAGPJHC 39 (24 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/45339

Judge

Strydom

The High Court held that a late Rule 7(1) challenge to attorneys’ authority could be condoned, and that ECKA’s mandate was sufficiently established.

• Authority To Act
• Uniform Rule 7
• Mandate Of Attorney
• Corporate Resolution
• Condonation
• Joinder