South Africa Case Law

Senekal v Legal Practice Council and Others (3858/2021)

Senekal v Legal Practice Council and Others (3858/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 103; [2023] 2 All SA 834 (FB) (31 March 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3858/2021

Judges

Van Zyl, Mhlambi

The court found that the LPC's decision to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry before only one member was unlawful and contrary to Rule 50, which requires two or more members. The applicant had a legitimate expectation, based on prior agreement and practice, that the Pan-matter would be heard by two chairpersons. The LPC's unilateral decision to allow virtual hearings, without authority or consultation, was also unlawful, as only the chairperson had the power to determine the manner of the enquiry. The chairperson's refusal to recuse himself, despite sharing an office and computer with the…

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary Enquiry
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Recusal Of Presiding Officer
• Virtual Hearings
• Costs Attorney And Client

Minshan Africa Holdings (Pty) Ltd v African Skys (Pty) Ltd (1743/2018)

Minshan Africa Holdings (Pty) Ltd v African Skys (Pty) Ltd (1743/2018) [2022] ZAECQBHC 34 (13 September 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1743/2018

Judge

Bands

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the timing and circumstances of the witness's unavailability due to the Covid-19 lockdown. The plaintiff did not adequately explain when the lockdown commenced, why arrangements for the witness's attendance were not made earlier, or why the defendant was only informed shortly before trial. The court held that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the plaintiff's conduct contained an element of blameworthiness. Applying the general rule and relevant case law, the court exercised its discretion to order…

Source excerpt

• Wasted Costs
• Postponement
• Court Discretion
• Virtual Hearings
• Covid 19 Lockdown

Zoolakha v G L Events Oasys Consortium and Another (19126/18)

Zoolakha v G L Events Oasys Consortium and Another (19126/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 433 (18 June 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19126/18

Judge

Tsatsi EK

The High Court allowed an elderly, ill plaintiff to record evidence on commission under Rule 38, while preserving the respondents’ procedural rights.

• Evidence On Commission
• Rule 38 Application
• Virtual Hearings
• Inherent Jurisdiction
• Accommodation Of Litigants
• Civil-procedure

Ishmail v G L Events Oasys Consortium and Another (19126/18)

Ishmail v G L Events Oasys Consortium and Another (19126/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 384 (18 June 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19126/18

Judge

Tsatsi

The court granted an elderly plaintiff leave to record evidence on commission under Rule 38 because of ill-health, while preserving the respondents’ participation rights.

• Evidence On Commission
• Rule 38 Application
• Virtual Hearings
• Inherent Jurisdiction
• Ubuntu Principle
• Rule-38

R.D.V v I.J.D.V (81157/2017)

R.D.V v I.J.D.V (81157/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 209 (24 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

81157/2017

Judge

N Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay wasted costs after insisting on an open court hearing despite a COVID-19 virtual hearing directive.

• Wasted Costs
• Virtual Hearings
• Covid19 Court Directives
• Divorce Action
• Wasted-costs
• Virtual-hearings

Puma Sports Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Hughes and Others (1820/18)

Puma Sports Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Hughes and Others (1820/18) [2020] ZAWCHC 152 (10 November 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1820/18

Judge

O L Rogers

The High Court granted a short postponement of a civil trial delayed by Covid-19 travel issues, counsel unavailability, and late trial preparation.

• Postponement Of Trial
• Virtual Hearings
• Costs Award
• Attorney And Client Scale
• Postponement-of-trial
• Virtual-hearings

Mokoena v Merafong City Local Municipality and Another (J 814/20)

Mokoena v Merafong City Local Municipality and Another (J 814/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 135; (2020) 41 ILJ 2882 (LC) (24 August 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 814/20

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The Court found that the applicant and her representative engaged in a pattern of obstructive conduct, repeatedly postponing the disciplinary enquiry and failing to take reasonable steps to ensure participation in the virtual hearing. The applicant's claims of technical difficulties were not substantiated, and the Municipality had provided adequate support and alternatives. The Chairperson was entitled under the regulations to proceed in the applicant's absence. The applicant failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought, and any injury was self-inflicted. The Labour Court's jurisdic…

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Audi Alterem Partem
• Virtual Hearings
• Postponement Of Hearings
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court

McWilliams v McWilliams and Others (3145/2015)

McWilliams v McWilliams and Others (3145/2015) [2020] ZAECPEHC 28 (3 August 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

3145/2015

Judge

M Makaula

The court found that the complexity and volume of documentation required for the trial, the need for continual supplementation of trial bundles, and the logistical challenges of consulting expert witnesses in different locations made a virtual hearing impractical. The plaintiff's concerns regarding health risks and the inability to manage documentation effectively in a virtual format were accepted. The court held that, in the interests of justice, the postponement should be granted as a virtual hearing would not be convenient or fair to the parties or the court.

Source excerpt

• Postponement Of Trial
• Virtual Hearings
• Covid19 Impacts
• Expert Evidence Management