Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... [15] the argument was advanced that because the appellants wife had been injured in a motor accident some 11 years before, and is disabled to an extent as a result, the imposition of a custodial sentence on the appellant would work hardship on the appellants daughter because the appellant was responsible for most of the physical caring for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: land claims court (mia aj sitting with an assessor as court of first instance): 1. the appeal is dismissed save for paragraph 4 of the order of the court below which is set aside and substituted with the following: 4. the plaintiffs are entitled to costs herein on a party and party scale including the costs of two counsel where so employed. 2. the appellants are ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. judgment mhlantla ja (lewis, ponnan and shongwe jja and erasmus aja concurring): [1] farjas (pty) ltd and rainy days farms (pty) ltd (the appellants) are two companies, (the sole director of each being mr f jasat) which owned immovable properties on the farm whispers, pietermaritzburg. the appellants had purchased the properties for the purpose of developing a township thereon. the properties were rezoned and the plans were drafted for that purpose. on 24 june 1991, both properties were expropriated by the minister of housing (house of delegates) in terms of the expropriation act 63 of 1975. the appellants received compensation as follows: farjas, an amount of r260 000 and rainy days, a sum of r280 000. they were promised an amount of r10 000 each as solatia but this was never paid. [2] the appellants were not satisfied with the compensation paid. as a result, they instituted proceedings in the natal provincial division in terms of the expropriation act for increased compensation. they subsequently aborted these legal proceedings when the restitution of land .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: north gauteng high court, pretoria (tuchten aj sitting as court of first instance) the award of damages for defamation and injuria is set aside and replaced with an award of r20 000. save for that the appeal is dismissed with costs. judgment nugent ja (cachalia and shongwe jja concurring) [1] rayton is a small town of about 2 500 inhabitants. it is where mr kruger (the respondent) conducts business repairing motor vehicles. while at his premises mr kruger was arrested by the police under a warrant that had been issued by a magistrate. he was driven to a police station where he was incarcerated overnight. the following day he was brought before a magistrate and released on bail. in due course the director of public prosecutions declined to prosecute. [2] a reporter and a cameraman from e-tv a national television broadcaster were present at the premises when the police arrived to arrest mr kruger. they followed the police onto the premises and made a video and audio recording of the arrest, and of mr kruger being led away in handcuffs to the waiting police vehicle. that night a report of the arrest accompanied by visual images was broadcast on one of its news channels. [3] mr kruger sued the minister of safety and security (the appellant) in the north gauteng high court for damages, first, for unlawful arrest and detention, secondly, for infringement of his dignity, and thirdly, for defamation. all the claims succeeded before tuchten aj. he awarded .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: western cape high court (bozalek j sitting as court of first instance). the appeal is upheld. the orders of the court below so far as they relate the appellant (first defendant in the court below) are set aside and the following is substituted: the claim against the first defendant is dismissed. judgment nugent ja (snyders ja and r pillay aj concurring) [1] k v minister of safety and security1concerned a claim by a woman who was raped by three policemen. she had encountered them at a petrol station where she was stranded in the early hours of the morning. the policemen were on duty at the time, they were in uniform, and they were in a marked police vehicle. they offered to take her home and she readily accepted. instead she was driven to a quiet place where she was raped. needless to say, the policemen were all delictually liable for their conduct, but that was not the issue in the case. the issue was whether the state nominally represented by the minister of safety and security was vicariously liable for their conduct. the constitutional court held that it was. [2] this case seeks to take that a step further. the respondent in this case who i will refer to as ms f was also raped by a policeman. ms f had similarly found herself stranded late at night and the policeman offered to drive her home. instead he drove to a remote spot where he raped her. the distinction between this case and k is that on this occasion the policeman was not on duty. once more .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: south gauteng high court, johannesburg (monama j sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel, but subject to the further orders set out below. 2. the respondents shall not be entitled to recover their costs of complying with rule 8(9) of the rules of this court and 40% of the costs of perusal of the record. 3. none of the legal practitioners, whether representing the appellants or the respondents, shall be entitled to recover from their clients any costs in relation to the preparation and lodging of revised records or the revised heads of argument. judgment wallis ja (mthiyane dp, mhlantla ja and mathopo aja concurring) [1] peter and alfred (known as lef, left or lefty) christelis were identical twins born on 2[ ]. they left school early to work in their fathers shop and proved to be adept businessmen. the principal source of their success was a sweet factory in germiston, but they branched out into other activities, including property development and money lending. in the result they became wealthy. that wealth was shared between them equally, the relationship being so close that, as lef said after his brothers death, they did everything together and shared everything so that the relationship was one of universal partnership. the complete lack of separation between their business interests and assets is the source of the present litigation, which is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: north gauteng high court, pretoria (webster j, mngqibisa-thusi j concurring, sitting on appeal from the magistrates court): the appeals are upheld and the convictions and sentences on all counts are set aside judgment wallis ja(mhlantla ja and mocumie aja concurring) [1] this is a case about a baboon. by all accounts, until it apparently met an untimely end, the baboon behaved impeccably. the saga has involved a trial in the district court over four days, an appeal to the full court of the north gauteng high court, a petition to this court and then this appeal. the expenditure of time and effort and the costs to the public purse and the appellants, dr and mrs macrae, have been considerable. those include emotional costs, because for seven and a half years the trial and their convictions for defeating or obstructing the administration of justice and theft of the baboon have hung over their heads. and all this was caused by a bureaucratic insistence by the officials of the gauteng directorate nature conservation that the baboon be removed from their possession, where it is common cause it was being properly cared for. the irony of the situation is that, so we were informed from the bar, after the baboon was handed to these officials at the end of the trial in the district court, it was placed in a shelter where it appears to have burned to death in a fire. had it remained with the macraes there is no reason to believe that it would now be anything other than .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: western cape high court, cape town (louw, ndita jj and dolamo aj sitting as court of appeal): 1. the appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel. 2. the cross-appeal succeeds with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel. 3. paragraph 2 of the order of the court below is amended to read as follows: the orders made by the court a quo are set aside and the following substituted orders are made: 1. the eighth and ninth respondents are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the following amounts: (a) the sum of r 12 million. (b) interest on the sum of r 12 million up until 10 february 2010 in the amount of r 12 million. (c) further interest on the capital sum of r 12 million at a rate of 3% per month from 10 february 2010 to 24 february 2012. (d) interest on the total of the amounts set out in paras (a), (b) and (c) above at a rate of 3% per month from 25 february 2012 to date of payment thereof, such interest to be limited to the total of the said amounts. (e) costs of suit on the party and party scale, such costs to include the costs of two counsel. judgment wallis ja (mpati p, shongwe ja and mathopo aja concurring) [1] in 2006, a company, optimistically named winskor 139 (pty) ltd (winskor), had the opportunity to purchase a portfolio of properties in pretoria and resell them at what it anticipated would be a substantial profit. it had obtained a loan for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: south gauteng high court, johannesburg (spilg j sitting as court of first instance): the appeal is dismissed with costs. judgment theron ja (maya, bosielo, pillay and petse jja concurring): [1] the first respondent, ms pinky mkhwanazi (ms mkhwanazi), instituted application proceedings against the appellant, quartermark investments (pty) ltd (quartermark), a property investment company, claiming that it had fraudulently induced her into signing certain sale and lease agreements in respect of her immovable property. in the south gauteng high court, ms mkhwanazi sought and obtained an order setting aside the transfer of the property to quartermark; declaring the sale agreements that led to the transfer null and void; directing that the second respondent transfer the property into her name and other ancillary relief.1quartermark appeals against the decision of the high court (spilg j) with the leave of that court. the second respondent, the registrar of deeds, johannesburg, has not taken part in the proceedings and abides the decision of this court. [2] in 2004, ms mkhwanazi purchased the immovable property known as erf 1795 klipfontein (the property) with a loan obtained from nedbank limited (nedbank), which was secured by registering a mortgage bond over the property. subsequently, ms mkhwanazi fell into substantial arrears in respect of her loan obligations to nedbank as well as her obligations to another financier in respect of her motor vehicle. nedbank .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... gusha v road accident fund 2012 (2) sa 371 (sca) para 7. 9. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:western cape high court (henney j sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel. 2. the order of the court below is set aside and in its stead is substituted the following: 1 it is ordered in terms of s 163(2)(f)(i) of the companies act 71 of 2008 that: 1..1 mr b j manca sc, a senior advocate practising at the cape bar, and mr louis strydom, a senior chartered accountant (sa) of pricewaterhouse coopers inc, are appointed independent directors of seena marena investments (pty) ltd. 2. the independent directors appointed in terms of paragraph 1.1 of this order shall have the sole right, in their absolute discretion, to the exclusion of any other directors nominated by the shareholders of seena marena investments (pty) ltd, to determine whether an investigation into the affairs of seena marena investments (pty) ltd, in the light of the complaints made on behalf of grancy property limited, is necessary and if so to conduct such an investigation. 3. the said independent directors may not be removed as directors save by a unanimous vote of the shareholders of seena marena investments (pty) ltd or an order of the high court, having jurisdiction. 4. the independent directors shall constitute the board of directors of seena marena investments (pty) ltd together with such directors as each of the shareholders may appoint to the board save that each shareholder shall be entitled to appoint only one director. 5. .....
Tag this Judgment!