Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from western cape high court (cape town) (binns-ward j sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel, to be paid by the appellants jointly and severally. 2. the cross appeal succeeds with costs, including those of two counsel. those costs and the costs of the application for leave to cross appeal in the high court are to be paid by the appellants jointly and severally. 3. the orders of the high court are set aside. the following orders are substituted: a. the imposition of rates by the applicant on the respondents in the financial years from 2002/2003 to 2008/2009 was lawful. b. the respondents are ordered to make payment to the applicant of the amounts set out against their names, and corresponding municipal account numbers, on the schedule headed uitstaande belastings?, deposited with the registrar of the supreme court of appeal, together with interest a tempore morae, as provided in the applicants credit control policy. c. the defendant or defendants in each action in the magistrates courts are ordered to pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings for recovery of the amounts owed by them in the magistrates courts. d. the respondents are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the applicants costs including the costs of two counsel. judgment lewis ja (nugent, bosielo, theron and wallis jja concurring) [1] the appellants are rural landowners who farm within the area of the bergrivier municipality, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: north west high court, (mafikeng), gura j sitting as court of first instance: 1. the appeal and cross-appeal are upheld to the extent set out below. 2. the order of the high court is set aside. 3. the matter is remitted to the high court for reconsideration. 4. prior to the hearing of the matter in the high court: (i) the 21st and 22nd respondents are ordered, within 30 days of the grant of this order, to file affidavits in which they set out the following details: (a) the steps taken to ascertain the availability of suitable alternative accommodation for the 1st to 20th respondents; and (b) what alternative land and/or alternative accommodation is now or in the near future likely to become available for the 1st to 20th respondents. (ii) the 1st to 20th respondents are ordered to file affidavits setting out their personal circumstances including, but not limited to, the rights and needs of the elderly, children, disabled persons and households headed by women, and any such additional information that is relevant to a just determination of this matter. these affidavits must be filed on or before 6 august 2014. (iii) the appellant may, within 15 days after the filing of the 1st to 20th respondents affidavits, file such affidavits as it deems necessary. 5. pending the finalisation of this matter in the high court, the appellant is interdicted from evicting the 1st to 20th respondents from the properties they are currently occupying. 6. the high court is directed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: labour appeal court, johannesburg (tlaletsi ja (waglay ajp concurring), murphy aja dissenting sitting as court of appeal): (1) the appeal is upheld. (2) the order of the labour appeal court is set aside and in its stead is substituted the following order: (a) the appeal succeeds with costs. (b) the order of the labour court is set aside and substituted with: (i) the arbitration award issued by the second respondent, commissioner cl dickens no, under case number pshs453-07/08 on 27 september 2008 is reviewed and set aside; (ii) the matter is remitted to the first respondent, the public health and welfare sectoral bargaining council, to arbitrate the dispute referred to it by the first applicant, solidarity, on behalf jacobus adriaan hendrik kotze.? judgment ponnan ja (bosielo and theron jja and hancke and swain ajja concurring): [1] on 4 july 2007 the second appellant, jacobus adriaan hendrik kotze (the employee), who had been in the employ of the third respondent, the department of health: free state (the employer), for 17 years was placed on what was described by the employer as a precautionary suspension pending the finalisation of an investigation into allegations of misconduct levelled against him. with effect from 23 july 2007 and whilst under suspension, the employee, without having first obtained the permission of the employer, secured employment in pretoria with a firm called compu africa, which was owned by one of his relatives. [2] on 19 october .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: kwazulu natal high court, durban (vahedj sitting as court of first instance) it is ordered that: 1. the appeal is upheld with costs, such costs to include the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel. 2. the order of the court below is set aside and replaced with the following order: the application is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel. judgment wallis ja(nugent, bosielo and petse jja and swain aja concurring) [1] the appellant, sanral, which has responsibility for south africas national roads, invited tenders for the operation of the n2 south coast toll plaza. four tenderers submitted tenders, and the contract was awarded to tolconlehumo (pty) ltd, the second respondent. the first respondent, a consortium of three companies operating under the name of the toll collect consortium (the consortium), was dissatisfied at the fact that its tender was unsuccessful and brought review proceedings in the kwazulu natal high court, durban, challenging the award of the tender. the review succeeded.vahed j set aside the award and ordered sanral to reconsider the tenders in the light of his judgment, subject to the qualification that no-one involved in the original assessment of the tenders should be involved in the fresh evaluation. this appeal is with his leave. [2] the tender documents provided that the assessment of tenders would take place in two stages. first they would be assessed for quality .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:the south eastern cape high court, port elizabeth (mhlantla 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 replaced with the following order: (a) the first, second and third respondents are ordered to pay the sum of r401 252,69 to the plaintiff jointly and severally; (b) the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants are ordered to pay the sum of r151 676,18 to the plaintiff jointly and severally; (c) the seventh, eighth and ninth defendants are ordered to pay the sum of r153 107,80 to the plaintiff jointly and severally; (d) the tenth defendant is ordered to pay the sum of r7 896,47 to the plaintiff; (e) the eleventh and twelfth defendants are ordered to pay the sum of r75 069,38 to the plaintiff jointly and severally; (f) the fourteenth defendant is ordered to pay the sum of r21 478,66 to the plaintiff; (g) the defendants are ordered jointly and severally to pay interest on the respective amounts to the plaintiff at the prevailing prescribed interest rate a tempore morae; (h) the defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiffs costs of suit jointly and severally. judgment malan ja (brand, bosielo, majjiedt jja and boruchowitz aja concurring): [1] this is an appeal against the order of mhlantla j dismissing with costs the plaintiffs action against the defendants for the repayment of fees that were allegedly not due. the action was dismissed on the ground that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:kwazulu-natal high court, pietermaritzburg (swain and mnguni jj sitting as the court of appeal): 1. the appeal is upheld. 2. the order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following: (a) the appellant is found guilty of culpable homicide. (b) the appellant is sentenced to five years imprisonment wholly suspended for five years on condition that he is not convicted of murder or any competent verdict of murder, committed during the period of suspension. (c) the sentence imposed is antedated to 19 january 2009. judgment mocumie aja (maya, shongwe, willis and saldulker jja concurring): [1] this appeal arises from events which occurred in the early hours of 17 may 2003 during which the appellant shot and killed the deceased, mr denzil edward tatchell. mr dennis erick peter (dennis), the deceaseds uncle, was also shot and left severely injured. the appellant appeared in the regional court, ixopo, on one count of murder and one of attempted murder. at the end of the trial the regional magistrate, mr sihlahla, convicted him of murder and discharged him in respect of attempted murder. he was sentenced to undergo 12 years imprisonment. on appeal to the kwazulu-natal high court, pietermaritzburg (swain and mnguni jj) against his conviction and sentence, the appeal was dismissed. this appeal is with the leave of this court. [2] the main attack against the appeal was that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder as the state had failed to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: north gauteng high court, pretoria (makgoka j sitting as court of first instance): the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. judgment meyer aja (navsa adp, brand and shongwe jja and zondi aja concurring): [1] this appeal arises out of a directive issued by the acting regional director of the department of water affairs (the regional director) on 1 november 2005 in terms of s 19(3) of the national water act 36 of 1998 (the nwa). the directive was issued to the appellant, harmony gold mining company limited (harmony), and to the other gold mining companies that undertook gold mining operations in the klerksdorp orkney stilfontein hartbeesfontein (kosh) area in the north-west province, namely the fourth respondent, anglogold ashanti limited (anglogold), the fifth and sixth respondents, simmer and jack mines and simmer and jack investments (pty) ltd (collectively referred to as simmers), and the seventh respondent, stilfontein gold mining company limited (stilfontein). it required these companies to take anti-pollution measures in respect of ground and surface water contamination caused by their gold mining activities. harmony ceased to be engaged in mining operations in the kosh area on 27 february 2008. it then asserted that once it no longer had any connection to the land in question, the directive became invalid or unenforceable against it, a view not shared by most of the respondents. [2] gold mining operations by a number of different gold .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: western cape high court, cape town (griesel j sitting as court of first instance): the appeal is dismissed with costs judgment mthiyane ap (bosielo, wallis, pillay jja and zondi aja concurring): [1] this is an appeal against a judgment and order of the western cape high court (griesel j) in which the court a quo dismissed an appeal in terms of s 30p of the pension funds act 24 of 1956 (the act) against a determination of the acting pension funds adjudicator (the adjudicator). the appeal is with the leave of the court a quo. section 30p of the act provides that a party who is aggrieved by a determination of the adjudicator may apply to the division of the high court which has jurisdiction, for relief, and the high court may then consider the merits of the complaint made to the adjudicator under s 30a(3) and may make any order it deems fit. [2] the appellant (the city) lodged a complaint with the adjudicator in terms of s 30a of the act, against the conduct and administration of the first respondent (the fund).[1] the complaint arose from a dispute betweenthe city and the fund, concerning increased employer contributions from the city (at a rate of 20.78 per cent of members salaries) on an on-going, indefinite basis. the fund claimed that it was entitled to exact increased employer contributions from the city. the city contended that it was only obliged to pay the increased contributions for a 5 year period between july 2003 and july 2008, whereafter the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:south gauteng high court, johannesburg (pandya aj and assessors sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal in respect of counts 2, 6 and 7 is upheld and the convictions and sentences on those counts are set aside. 2. the appeal against the convictions on counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 is dismissed. 3. the appeal in respect of sentence on counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 succeeds to the extent that the sentences imposed by the trial court are set aside and replaced with the following: (a) count 1 12 months imprisonment. (b) counts 3, 4 and 5 (taken together for purposes of sentence) six years imprisonment. (c) the sentences in (a) and (b) above are to be served concurrently. 4. the appeal in respect of count 8 is dismissed and the conviction and sentence on that count are confirmed. 5. the effective sentence is therefore one of eight years imprisonment. leach ja (cachalia ja and meyer aja concurring) [1] the appellant, a chartered accountant and businessman, was tried in the south gauteng high court on six charges of fraud counts 1 to 6 and two charges under the companies act 61 of 1973 counts 7 and 8 (the latter act has since been repealed, but all references to the companies act hereinafter are to the 1973 act and not to the new companies act 71 of 2008). the appellant denied his guilt but, after a marathon trial, was convicted on all eight counts. he was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on each of the six counts of fraud, to one years imprisonment or a fine .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: north gauteng high court, pretoria (kollapen aj sitting as court of first instance): the appeal is dismissed. judgment van der merwe aja (mthiyane ap, theron and petse jja and zondi aja concurring): [1] the issue in this appeal is whether this court should interfere with the sanction for contempt of court imposed in respect of the first respondent by kollapen aj in the north gauteng high court, pretoria. the judgment of the court a quo is reported as gf v sh and others 2011 (3) sa 25 (gnp). it granted leave to appeal to this court. [2] the second and third respondents have no interest in the appeal. the first respondent (the respondent) does, but did not participate in the hearing of the appeal. the appellant rightly did not persist in an attempt to place further evidence before this court. [3] the issue arose in the following manner. the appellant and the first respondent (the parties) were married to each other on 21 march 1992. two children were born of the marriage, namely a boy born on 26 february 1995 and a girl born on 27 september 1997. however, the marriage did not last. on 27 august 2002 the marriage between the parties was dissolved by order of the high court. an agreement of settlement between the parties was also made an order of court. in terms of the agreement of settlement custody of the minor children was awarded to the appellant, subject to the right of reasonable access to the children of the respondent, who was the plaintiff in the action. .....
Tag this Judgment!