South Africa Case Law

Machard v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (11012/2022)

Machard v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (11012/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 135; [2025] 2 All SA 810 (WCC) (30 January 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11012/2022

Judge

VC Saldanha

The court held that the Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act does not mandate the appointment of military assessors in all trials before a Court of a Military Judge. The statutory scheme, particularly sections 10(1)(b), 20, and 30(24), provides for an election by the accused to have two assessors appointed, one of whom may be a Warrant Officer. The Act requires that the accused be informed of this right and that the election be properly recorded. The applicant was duly informed and elected to proceed without assessors. The court found that the absence of assessors does not render th…

Source excerpt

• Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act
• Statutory Interpretation
• Fair Trial Rights
• Appointment Of Assessors
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights

Lottering v Chief Executive Officer of the Road Accident Fund N.O and Another (1541/2018)

Lottering v Chief Executive Officer of the Road Accident Fund N.O and Another (1541/2018) [2021] ZANCHC 36 (13 August 2021)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1541/2018

Judge

Williams

The High Court dismissed RAF special pleas, finding waiver of prescription and that the Fund had failed to act on a claim it had undertaken to process.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Prescription
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights
• Duty Of Care
• Vicarious Liability
• Road-accident-fund

Emakhasaneni Community v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others, Entembeni v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others, Mthonjaneni Community v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC 03/2009, LCC 230/2009, LCC 201/2013)

Emakhasaneni Community v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others, Entembeni v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others, Mthonjaneni Community v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC 03/2009, LCC 230/2009, LCC 201/2013) [2019] ZALCC 27; 2019 (4) SA 286 (LCC) (6 March 2019)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 03/2009, LCC 230/2009, LCC 201/2013

Judges

Canca, Sibeko

The Land Claims Court held that the Minister was not bound by the Valuer-General’s figures, rejected the late Notice, and upheld the prior court order on compensation.

• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Property Valuation Act
• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Retrospective Application Of Statutes
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights

Mwelase and Others v Enforce Security Group and Others (D358/12)

Mwelase and Others v Enforce Security Group and Others (D358/12) [2015] ZALCD 46 (31 July 2015)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D358/12

Judge

Cele

The court found that the automatic termination clause in the applicants' contracts of employment was invalid as it unlawfully excluded the statutory protections against unfair dismissal provided by the Labour Relations Act and the Constitution. The public interest in protecting vulnerable employees, such as security officers, precludes the waiver of such rights. The third respondent committed a material error of law by failing to apply the relevant provisions of the LRA and by finding that the termination was not a dismissal. The termination constituted a dismissal for purposes of the LRA, an…

Source excerpt

• Automatic Termination Clauses
• Unfair Dismissal
• Severance Pay
• Section 189 Consultation
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights

Hyde Construction CC v Deuchar Family Trust and Another (12471/2012; A460/2013)

Hyde Construction CC v Deuchar Family Trust and Another (12471/2012; A460/2013) [2014] ZAWCHC 118; 2015 (5) SA 388 (WCC) (11 August 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12471/2012; A460/2013

Judges

Traverso, Bozalek, Rogers

The court held that the Deuchar Family Trust was properly before the court as applicant because any deficiency in authority at the time of institution was cured by subsequent ratification by all trustees, who held the requisite letters of authority. The trust deed required a minimum of three trustees, and at all relevant times, four trustees with authority existed, so there was no incapacity. The court distinguished between lack of authority, which may be ratified, and lack of capacity, which cannot. The citation of the trust by name was accepted as a reference to the trustees for the time be…

Source excerpt

• Arbitrator Removal
• Trustee Authority
• Ratification Of Proceedings
• Arbitration Act
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights

Digoeregoere Business Projects CC v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality (4400/2004)

Digoeregoere Business Projects CC v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality (4400/2004) [2011] ZAFSHC 186 (18 November 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4400/2004

Judge

C.J. Musi

The court found that claim A, being for specific performance, does not constitute a 'debt' as defined in the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act, 2002, and is therefore not subject to its notice requirements. Regarding claim B, the court held that the plaintiff, through its conduct and delay in raising non-compliance with section 3, had waived its right to rely on the statutory defence. The plaintiff was legally represented and engaged in negotiations, and its silence and failure to assert the right for an extended period were inconsistent with any hypothesis…

Source excerpt

• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against State
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights
• Substantial Compliance
• Specific Performance
• Breach Of Contract

Road Accident Fund v Ngubane (585/2006)

Road Accident Fund v Ngubane (585/2006) [2007] ZASCA 114; [2007] SCA 114 (RSA); 2008 (1) SA 432 (SCA) (21 September 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

585/2006

Judges

Scott, Mthiyane, Jafta, Malan, Mhlantla

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the two-year time limit for lodging claims under regulation 2(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act is enacted for the special benefit of the Fund and may be waived by the Fund if no public interest is involved. The compromise agreement entered into by the Fund and the plaintiff after the expiry of the statutory period constituted a waiver of the time limit and created new enforceable rights and obligations. The court found that the plaintiff's claim, although lodged late, became enforceable in law by virtue of the compromise, provided the agreement is proven…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Prescription
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights
• Compromise And Settlement

Bafana Finance Mabopane v Makwakwa and Another (475/04)

Bafana Finance Mabopane v Makwakwa and Another (475/04) [2006] ZASCA 46; 2006 (4) SA 581 (SCA) ; [2006] 4 All SA 1 (SCA) (30 March 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

475/04

Judges

Harms, Conradie, Cloete, Van Heerden, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a micro-lending clause barring an administration-order application under section 74 was contrary to public policy and unenforceable.

• Administration Order
• Public Policy
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights
• Micro Lending
• Contra Bonos Mores
• Administration-order

Kadiega v North-West Housing Corporation (412/2001)

Kadiega v North-West Housing Corporation (412/2001) [2005] ZANWHC 70; (2006) 27 ILJ 89 (NW) (29 September 2005)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

412/2001

Judge

A A Landman

The High Court held that the defendant’s letter was an undertaking, but the plaintiff failed to prove waiver of COIDA immunity. Absolution was granted with costs.

• Workplace Injury
• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Contractual Undertaking
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights
• Workplace-injury
• Coida

Road Accident Fund v Mothupi (518/98)

Road Accident Fund v Mothupi (518/98) [2000] ZASCA 27; 2000 (4) SA 38 (SCA); [2000] 3 All SA 181 (A) (29 May 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

518/98

Judges

Nienaber, Marais, Olivier, Plewman, Farlam

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Road Accident Fund did not waive its right to rely on prescription, either expressly or by conduct. The Fund's concession of negligence and ongoing negotiations regarding quantum did not amount to an unequivocal waiver of prescription, nor did they create a reasonable impression that prescription would not be invoked. The respondent failed to prove that the Fund's conduct was inconsistent with the possibility of raising prescription. The court refused the respondent's amendment to plead estoppel, finding that the necessary factual basis was not establ…

Source excerpt

• Prescription
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights
• Estoppel
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Constitutional Fairness
• Road Accident Fund Claims