Labour Law — Review of arbitration award — Urgent application for stay of enforcement — Applicant seeking exemption from security requirements under sections 145(7) and (8) of the LRA — Court finding that applicant failed to establish grounds for exemption or reduction of security — Application dismissed without costs.
Disciplinary Proceedings — Disclosure of documents — Applicant sought to compel the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) to produce further unspecified documents for disciplinary proceedings — HPCSA contended all relevant documents had been provided, including signed Powers of Attorney — Court found no basis for indeterminate disclosure and noted the applicant's review application was procedurally defective — Demand for recusal of the presiding Judge deemed procedurally flawed — Application for leave to appeal dismissed with punitive costs, as no reasonable prospect of a different outcome existed.
Delict — Road Accident Fund — Claim for compensation — Plaintiff involved in hit-and-run incident — No direct evidence of negligent driving — Plaintiff's recollection impaired due to injuries and alcohol consumption — Witnesses provided hearsay evidence regarding the incident — Court finds insufficient proof of negligence as required by section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 — Claim dismissed.
Tender — Interim interdict — Applicant sought to interdict the Department from entering into a Service Level Agreement with TEFLA following a tender award — Applicant, Working on Fire (Pty) Ltd, previously awarded the tender, was disqualified, leading to a judicial review and re-award to TEFLA — Court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right, as it had no legal standing following disqualification and could not demonstrate irreparable harm — Application for interim interdict dismissed, with costs awarded against the applicant.
Costs — Entitlement to costs — Applicants, a private school, sought costs after various applications became moot, claiming prejudice due to the respondents' conduct — Respondents contended that the applicants were not entitled to costs and sought costs against the applicants instead — Court held that the applicants were entitled to costs as the applications were necessitated by the respondents' actions, despite the mootness of the applications.
Constitutional Law — Remedies — Just and equitable remedy under section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution — Application for leave to appeal against Supreme Court of Appeal order preserving contractual rights of Zeal Health Innovations (Pty) Ltd despite contract invalidity — Minister of Defence and Military Veterans contending that preservation of rights was inappropriate and that ZHI should only recover out-of-pocket expenses — Court to determine whether an innocent contractor may retain benefits from an unlawful contract — Holding that the absence of a right to benefit from an unlawful contract does not automatically exclude such benefit from the court’s discretion under section 172(1)(b), allowing for a fact-dependent assessment of equitable remedies.
Criminal Law — Sentencing — Minimum sentence for murder — Accused found guilty of murder, attempted murder, arson, and assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm — Seriousness of gender-based violence highlighted — Lack of remorse and premeditated nature of the crime considered — Court imposed life imprisonment as minimum sentence under s51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, with no substantial and compelling circumstances found to justify a lesser sentence.
Delict — Road Accident Fund — Claim for damages arising from motor vehicle collisions — Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries in two separate accidents — Application for default judgment granted due to Defendant's failure to plead — Plaintiff's evidence admitted by way of affidavit in terms of Rule 38(2) — Court held that evidence was unchallenged and uncontested, allowing for a determination of future medical expenses and general damages based on expert reports — Plaintiff entitled to an undertaking for future medical expenses under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act.
Divorce — Forfeiture of benefits — Appeal against Regional Court's decree of divorce — Appellant seeking partial forfeiture of respondent's share in joint estate due to substantial misconduct — Court finding that the Regional Magistrate erred in not granting forfeiture of the immovable property — Appeal upheld with costs.
Suretyship — Liability of surety — Applicant seeking monetary judgment against respondent as surety for principal debtor's indebtedness — Respondent raising defences regarding incorrect amount claimed and sale of secured property — Court finding respondent's defences unsubstantiated and granting judgment for the outstanding amount as per updated certificate of balance.
Property Law — Termination of joint ownership — Actio communi dividundo — Applicant sought termination of joint ownership of immovable property co-owned with first respondent following breakdown of their romantic relationship — Applicant proposed to buy out first respondent's half-share or alternatively sell the property and divide proceeds — First respondent opposed application, seeking opportunity to buy applicant's share — Court held that joint ownership is terminable at the request of any co-owner, and granted order for applicant to retain sole ownership upon payment of market value for first respondent's share, with provisions for sale if financing not obtained within specified period.
Tort — Road Accident Fund — Liability for damages arising from motor vehicle accident — Plaintiff involved in collision with insured vehicle — Plaintiff bears onus to prove negligence of insured driver — Court finds insured driver solely negligent for executing U-turn in middle of roadway — Defendant held 100% liable for damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of collision. Facts: The plaintiff, a driver, sought damages from the Road Accident Fund following a motor vehicle accident on 26 February 2015. The defendant failed to comply with court orders, leading to a default judgment application. Legal Issue: Whether the defendant is liable for damages resulting from the negligence of the insured driver involved in the accident. Holding: The court found that the insured driver was solely negligent, resulting in the defendant being 100% liable for the plaintiff's proven damages.