South Africa Case Law

Rose v National Prosecuting Authority and Others (056281/2025)

Rose v National Prosecuting Authority and Others (056281/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 549 (15 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

056281/2025

Judge

Neukircher

The court held that the accused's representations to the National Prosecuting Authority are privileged and made on a without-prejudice basis, as confirmed by the NPA's PAIA Manual and relevant case law. The applicant, as a private prosecutor, does not stand in the same position as the NDPP, as he acts in his own interest and not in the public interest. Disclosure of the representations would confer an unfair advantage in criminal proceedings, allowing the applicant to tailor his evidence to the accused's version. The exceptions to the privilege rule do not apply in this case, and the applican…

Source excerpt

• Private Prosecution
• Legal Privilege
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Nolle Prosequi
• Without Prejudice Rule

M.M v Henley Air (Pty) Ltd (7470/2022)

M.M v Henley Air (Pty) Ltd (7470/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 29 (2 April 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

7470/2022

Judge

Kganyago

The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead interruption of prescription in her particulars of claim and did not file a replication after the defendant raised prescription by special plea. The issue of interruption was only raised in heads of argument, which is procedurally improper and prejudicial to the defendant. The defendant's without prejudice letter did not contain an unequivocal acknowledgment of liability and expressly denied liability, thus falling outside the exception established in KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investment. The defendant was entitled to raise prescriptio…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Special Plea
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Without Prejudice Rule
• Pleadings Requirements

Voltex (PTY) Ltd T/A Atlas Group v Resilient Rock (PTY) Ltd (2021/29872)

Voltex (PTY) Ltd T/A Atlas Group v Resilient Rock (PTY) Ltd (2021/29872) [2022] ZAGPJHC 350 (20 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/29872

Judge

VM Movshovich

Leave to appeal was dismissed in a liquidation dispute because insolvency was not established and the debt remained genuinely disputed.

• Company Liquidation
• Commercial Insolvency
• Bona Fide Defence
• Without Prejudice Rule
• Badenhorst Principle
• Company-liquidation

Willow and Aloe Grove Body Corporate v Big Bell Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Citynet (41535/2019)

Willow and Aloe Grove Body Corporate v Big Bell Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Citynet (41535/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 267 (26 October 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

41535/2019

Judge

I Opperman

The court struck out a pleaded admission and annexure because they were part of without prejudice settlement communications and therefore inadmissible.

• Without Prejudice Rule
• Rule 23 Application
• Pleading Irregularity
• Facta Probanda
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Without-prejudice-rule

KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments 17 (Pty) Ltd (1135/2016)

KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments 17 (Pty) Ltd (1135/2016) [2017] ZASCA 98; [2017] 3 All SA 739 (SCA); 2017 (6) SA 55 (SCA) (6 July 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1135/2016

Judges

Lewis, Tshiqi, Mbha, Fourie, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an acknowledgment of liability made in a without prejudice settlement communication cannot be admitted in evidence for the purpose of interrupting prescription under section 14 of the Prescription Act. The court reasoned that the without prejudice rule is founded on public policy and contractual principles, encouraging parties to negotiate freely without fear that admissions will be used against them. Recognizing an exception for prescription would undermine the rule's effectiveness and create legal and practical uncertainty. The court found that the Pres…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 14
• Without Prejudice Rule
• Acknowledgment Of Liability
• Settlement Negotiations
• Admissibility Of Evidence

KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments 17 (Pty) Ltd (9861/13, 16844/07)

KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments 17 (Pty) Ltd (9861/13, 16844/07) [2016] ZAWCHC 83; [2016] 3 All SA 832 (WCC); 2016 (5) SA 485 (WCC) (24 June 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9861/13, 16844/07

Judge

Rogers

The court held that the Webber Wentzel letter was written without prejudice as part of settlement negotiations and thus protected by the without prejudice rule. The law does not recognize an exception allowing such communications to be used as acknowledgments interrupting prescription, either under South African or English law as at 31 May 1961. The acknowledgment of liability in the letter was not wholly unconnected to the settlement proposal and cannot be isolated from the protected communication. Therefore, the letter is inadmissible for the purpose of interrupting prescription, and KLD's…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 14
• Without Prejudice Rule
• Commission Claims
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Settlement Negotiations