Southern African Legal Information Institute

11/07/2025

Daily update ☕️

ZAWCHC⚖️-Anton Pillar Order - Preservation - Seizing of documents- for a more detailed view

👉 :

EMILE VIVIAN ROCHER

09/07/2025

Royal AM Football Club (Pty) Ltd v National Soccer League and Others (2025/054266) [2025] ZAGPPHC 664

Summary: Whether the termination of the applicant’s membership as a Member Club of the National Soccer League (NSL aka PSL) was unlawful, and should be reviewed and set aside. Whether the NSL Board of Governors had the powers under the NSL Constitution to terminate the applicant’s membership with the NSL.

👉:

WILLEM JACOBUS VENTER N.O. Third Respondent

07/07/2025

Thulare v Thulare and Others (470/2023) [2025] ZASCA 100

Summary: Customary Law – Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act 3 of 2019 – Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 – Limpopo Traditional Leadership and Institutions Act 6 of 2005 – who constitutes royal family for purposes of identifying acting king or queen when king dies without a candle wife and heir – absence of expert evidence on applicable Bapedi custom – matter remitted to high court for hearing of oral and expert evidence.

👉:

MANYAKU MARIA THULARE APPELLANT

07/07/2025

SAFLII Weekly National and Provincial Gazette Update.

04/07/2025

The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Woolworths Holdings Limited (863/2023) [2025] ZASCA 99

Summary: Value Added Tax 89 0f 1991 (VAT Act) – An entity conducting an enterprise as an investment company is entitled to input tax deduction in respect of costs incurred in relation to a rights offer made to shareholders to raise capital for further investment which would increase the value of its investments.

👉:

AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE APPELLANT

04/07/2025

Van den Berg Water (Pty) Ltd t/a Oasis Water Lynnwood and Others v Oasis Water (Pty) Ltd and Another (989/2023; 988/2023; 1120/2023) [2025] ZASCA 98

Summary: Law of Contract – franchise agreement – whether post-termination provisions enforceable – whether terms unreasonable and unjust contrary to Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 – interdict – appellants ordered to return printed materials related to franchise, signage, and to cease using business system and intellectual property.

👉:

VAN DEN BERG WATER (PTY) LTD FIRST APPELLANT

02/07/2025

Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Ramalho, NO and Another (946/2023) [2025] ZASCA 97

Summary: Liquidation-Concursus creditorum-Mandate given by the seller to the attorneys to make payment from the proceeds of sale terminated upon the seller’s liquidation-the payment made after liquidation was unlawful-appeal dismissed with costs.

👉:

PICK ‘N PAY RETAILERS (PTY) LTD APPELLANT

02/07/2025

Letsoalo v Road Accident Fund and Another (086260/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 663

Summary: The Board of the Road Accident Fund (Board) is contractually empowered to place the Chief Executive Officer of the Road Accident Fund on a precautionary suspension. The Board is a statutory body and once cited as a decision maker, it is entitled to oppose any application seeking to impugn its decision. Where rule 7(1) of the Uniform Rules is invoked, a person acting on behalf of a party, whose authority is disputed is only required to satisfy the Court that he or she is authorised so to act. The fact that the resolution seeking to prove authorisation has errors regarding dates is of no moment. As such, an application contemplated in rule 6(5)(e) is not necessary. What is required is an interpretation of the document to establish the intentions of the author.

When the Board took a decision to suspend, it exercised contractual power. A suspension does not amount to an administrative action within the contemplation of section 33(1) of the Constitution read with the provisions of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), thus the requirements of reasonableness do not find application. Similarly, a suspension in the context of the present application is not an exercise of public power, thus the requirement of rationality finds no application.

The Disciplinary Policy approved by the applicant in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) does not apply to him as part of his conditions of employment as determined by the Board of the RAF. What finds application is the provisions of clause 21 of the Fixed Term Contract of employment. There is no dispute that the provisions of clause 21 has been complied with, as such, there is no basis in law to demonstrate unlawfulness. Accordingly, this Court cannot declare the suspension to be unlawful.

The applicant has no legal right to be appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of the RAF. Speculative evidence that the Board resolved to re-appoint him, is not sufficient to establish a prima facie right even one open to doubt. Absent prima facie right, an interim interdict cannot be issued. Speculative evidence that the position is about to be advertised is not sufficient to establish an apprehension of harm.

Regarding costs, the principle in Biowatch finds no application. The applicant is not seeking to enforce a constitutional right. This is purely a contractual dispute where the applicant is seeking to protect his pecuniary interests, which were contractually acquired. Held: (1) The application is heard as one of urgency. Held: (2) The application is dismissed. Held: (3) The applicant must pay the costs of this application on a party and party scale to be settled or taxed at scale C, which costs include the costs of employment of two counsel and the costs occasioned on 17 June 2025.

👉:

ROAD ACCIDENT FUND First Respondent

30/06/2025

SAFLII Weekly National and Provincial Gazette Update. If you would like to be included into our weekly email please send a email to [email protected]

27/06/2025

Daily update ☕️

ZAECBHAC⚖️-Criminal-Murder- Self defence for a more detailed view

👉 :

STEPHANUS SAMSON Accused

23/06/2025

Yossi Barel v Popular Trading CC and Others (1102/2023) [2025] ZASCA 94

Summary: Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 – whether a case was made out for setting aside a warrant in terms of s 6 – whether a case was made out in terms of s 7(4)(a) of the Counterfeit Goods Act – what constitutes counterfeiting in terms of s 1(1)(b) of the Counterfeit Goods Act – ‘goods calculated to be confused with or to be taken as being the protected goods’ – counterfeit goods as the result of counterfeiting – infringement in terms of s 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993.

👉:

Reportable