South Africa Case Law

S v Mabena and Others (REV06/2021)

S v Mabena and Others (REV06/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 14 (26 April 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

REV06/2021

Judges

MF. Kganyago, MV Semenya

The regional court in Morebeng did not have jurisdiction to hear the bail application for offences allegedly committed in both Molemole and Polokwane magisterial districts because the prosecution failed to obtain the required written authority from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Section 50(6)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act makes it mandatory for such authority to be obtained for Schedule 6 offences to be heard in a regional court. The absence of written authorization constitutes a gross irregularity, rendering the bail proceedings a nullity. The proceedings were not in accordance with…

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Jurisdiction Of Magistrates Courts
• Schedule 6 Offences
• Written Authority Requirement

Le Roux and Another v Nel and Another (246/2013)

Le Roux and Another v Nel and Another (246/2013) [2013] ZASCA 109 (16 September 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

246/2013

Judges

Brand, Nugent, Malan, Majiedt, Van der Merwe

The court held that the appellants failed to comply with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act, as their attorney acted on oral instructions and lacked written authority to exercise the option. The letter sent by the attorney did not constitute written authority, and mere repetition or reference to acting on behalf of the appellants was insufficient. Consequently, no valid contract of sale was concluded, and the option lapsed. The doctrine of notice did not assist the appellants, as it presupposes a valid claim for transfer, which was absent. The doctrine of fictional fulfilment was inap…

Source excerpt

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Doctrine Of Notice
• Doctrine Of Fictional Fulfilment
• Written Authority Requirement
• Amendment Of Pleadings

Van der Merwe v Firstrand Bank t/a Wesbank and Barloworld Equipment Finance (1346/05)

Van der Merwe v Firstrand Bank t/a Wesbank and Barloworld Equipment Finance (1346/05) [2010] ZAECGHC 132; 2012 (1) SA 480 (ECG) (7 October 2010)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1346/05

Judge

M Makaula

The court found that Rule 34(1) is clear and peremptory in requiring written authority for an attorney to sign an offer of settlement. In this case, the applicant's attorney accepted a settlement offer without such written authority, resulting in non-compliance with Rule 34(1). The judgment granted on 20 March 2008 was therefore erroneously granted, as the substantive requirements of the rule were not met. The court distinguished the present facts from those in Lodhi, noting that the error was fundamental and not merely procedural. Had the judge been aware of the lack of written authority, th…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 34 Offer Of Settlement
• Written Authority Requirement
• Rule 42 Erroneous Grant
• Condonation

Ixhanti Lethu Trading (Edms) Beperk v Matjhabeng Munisipaliteit and Others (6567/2007)

Ixhanti Lethu Trading (Edms) Beperk v Matjhabeng Munisipaliteit and Others (6567/2007) [2008] ZAFSHC 17 (27 February 2008)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6567/2007

Judge

K.J. Moloi

The court dismissed an application to confirm an interim interdict over municipal land, finding the sale invalid for lack of written authority and non-compliance with a council resolution.

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Municipal Land Sale
• Ultra Vires
• Written Authority Requirement
• Council Resolution Compliance
• Alienation-of-land-act