Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:south gauteng high court (johannesburg) (du toit aj sitting as court of first instance): the appeal is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel. the order of the court below is set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the application with costs, including the costs of two counsel. judgment tshiqi ja (concurring) introduction 1. this appeal relates to the validity of the decision by the south african social security agency (sassa) to enter into a letter agreement with the south african post office ltd (sapo) for the provision of basic banking services to eligible members of the south african public in order to facilitate the payment of social grants to them. the agreement was an interim agreement and foreshadowed the conclusion of a final agreement. the first appellant is the chief executive officer of sassa, the second appellant is sassa and the third appellant is sapo. 2. the present respondent, cash paymaster services (pty) ltd (paymaster), launched an application in the high court in which it sought to review the decision taken by sassa to enter into the letter agreement, and interdict sassa from entering into the proposed final agreement with sapo to render banking or payment services, relating to social security beneficiaries, without having followed a procurement process which complies with s 217(1) of the constitution, s 51(1)(a)(iii) of the public finance management act 1 of 1999 (the pfm act) and the treasury regulations made .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: south gauteng high court, johannesburg (saldulker j sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal against paragraph d of the order of the court below is allowed and the order is amended by the deletion of that paragraph. subject thereto and paragraphs e, f and g being renumbered d, e and f respectively, the order of the court below is confirmed. 2. save as is set out in paragraph 1 hereto, the appeal is dismissed with costs. judgment theron ja (ponnan and mhlantla jja and swain aja concurring): [1] this appeal relates to the entitlement of the respondent, rheinmettal denel munition ltd (rdm), to a statement of account and if necessary, the payment of such moneys as may be found to be due to it upon the debatement of such account, by the appellant, warren bowles corporation communication cc (the close corporation). [2] on or about 19 february 2010 the parties entered into a partly written and partly oral agreement (the main agreement), in terms whereof the close corporation, upon payment of the agreed sum of r8,5 million, agreed to organise a special event for rdm, which involved a demonstration of the products manufactured by the latter. the demonstration was scheduled for 10 to 14 may 2010. the written portion of the agreement recorded that. it was recorded that rdm reserved the right to cancel the event up to 8 march 2010 and if cancelled around 8 march 2010, a forty per cent cancellation fee would be applicable. it was further agreed that rdm would pay .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: south gauteng high court, johannesburg (satchwell j sitting as court of first instance): the appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel. judgment ponnan ja (malan, majiedt, willis and saldulker jja concurring): [1] the first appellant is the ekurhuleni metropolitan municipality (the municipality), a metropolitan municipality established as such in accordance with the provisions of the local government: municipal structures act 117 of 1998. the second appellant is the gauteng department of housing (the provincial department) established in accordance with the provisions of the public service act 1994 (proclamation 103 of 1994) and is responsible for the provision of housing within the gauteng province. the appellants appeal against the judgment of the south gauteng high court, johannesburg, in which satchwell j dismissed with costs their application in terms of the prevention of illegal eviction from and unlawful occupation of land act 19 of 1998 (pie), for the eviction of various occupiers (the respondents)1from a housing development known as eden park extension 5 (ext 5). [2] the development of subsidised housing at eden park was initiated as a local development project in 2000 when a proposal was made by a company known as bluedot properties to the alberton town council to erect 3 500 houses with donor funding. it was envisaged that the project would assist the alberton town council to address .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:western cape high court, cape town (davis j sitting as court of first instance): the appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel whenever employed. judgment brand ja(theron, pillay, petse jja et meyer aja concurring): [1] this appeal turns on the application of s 34(1)(b) of the trade marks act 194 of 1993 and s 20(2)(b) of the close corporations act 69 of 1984 prior to its amendment that came into operation in 2011. the first appellant, mr alexander mettenheimer, is the registered proprietor of the trade mark zonquasdrift in class 33 in respect of alcoholic beverages, except beer. the trade mark therefore covers wine but not wine grapes which, incidentally, falls in class 31. mettenheimer and his wife are also the shareholders in the second appellant, a private company which is the owner of a farm called zonquasdrift between malmesbury and riebeek kasteel in the western cape. until recently the second appellant was known as almett properties (pty) ltd, but on 3 may 2012 that is about two years after the commencement of the present litigation it formally changed its name to zonquasdrift estates (pty) ltd. [2] the first respondent is a close corporation with the registered name zonquasdrif vineyards cc. it conducts its farming business on a farm situated about one kilometre from the second appellants farm where it grows wine grapes which it sells under its registered name. the second and third respondents are the registrar of close .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:land claims court, western cape(carelse j sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal against para 1 of the order of the lcc is dismissed. 2. the appeal against paragraph 2 of the order of the lcc is upheld. that paragraph is set aside and substituted with the following: the second defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the cost incurred in erecting a memorial plaque on the building, limited to the sum of r50 000. 3. para 3 of the order of the lcc is altered to read: the respondent is to pay the costs of the plaintiff insofar as they have not been met by the land claims commission. judgment tshiqi ja (nugent and malan jja concurring): 1. the facts in this appeal are largely common cause. they are contained in a statement of agreed factssignedby the partiesprior to the trial in the land claims court (the lcc). this appeal is with the leave of that court (per carelse j). 2. the appellants late husband, mr lionel florence, and his brothers purchased the property known as sunny croft in 1957 from its owner, dr yeller, in terms of a written instalment sale agreement. sunny croft was never transferred into the name of the florence brothers as a result of racially discriminatory legislation which prohibited the transfer of land to disqualified persons. in 1970 the florence brothers were compelled to cancel the sale agreement, sell the property back to dr yeller and to vacate it following threats to do so from inspectors who were acting in terms of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: south gauteng high court, johannesburg (kgomo j sitting as court of first instance): the appeal is upheld and the order of the court below is set aside and replaced with the following: the application is dismissed. judgment mthiyane ap (brand, shongwe, majiedt and petse jja concurring): [1] the outcome of this appeal turns on the interpretation of demand guarantees that were issued by mizhuo corporate bank limited of japan (the bank) in favour of the appellant (eskom) to secure performance by the respondents (hitachi) of their obligations under a construction contract concluded between eskom and hitachi during october 2007, for the construction of certain of the works at the medupi power station (medupi). the guarantees were issued at the instance of hitachi. medupi is a massive new electrical power generating station that is being constructed in the north western part of the limpopo province near the rural town of ellisras. it is agreed between the parties that the first of its six power generating plants should be online in 2013 and the last of them by july 2015. [2] hitachi has elected not to oppose the appeal and to abide the decision of this court. in turn eskom is not seeking an order for costs against hitachi. [3] in terms of the construction contract, hitachi provided six guarantees drawn on the bank. three of these guarantees are in the sums of r300 384 946.13, 21 273 236.13 and us$445 838.25, amounting in total to a south african rand equivalent of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: western cape high court, cape town (hlophe jp and zondi j sitting as court of first instance): the appeal is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel. judgment mthiyane dp (maya, shongwe jja, erasmus and mbha ajja concurring): [1] this appeal is against a judgment and order of the western cape high court (hlophe jp and zondi j) dismissing the appellants appeal in terms of s 20 of the health professions act 56 of 1974 (the act) against the decision of the second respondent, the professional board for emergency care practitioners (the board), to withdraw the appellants accreditation. with the leave of the high court the appellant appeals to this court. [2] the appeal follows an earlier appeal to this court by the respondents against the judgment and order of the western cape high court, in which motala j and manca aj had held that an appeal under s 20 of the act is a wide appeal which is not confined to the record which served before the board. the appeal was struck from the roll on the basis that the matter was not properly before the court. leave had been granted on the question whether the s 20 appeal was a wide appeal or a narrow appeal. in granting leave to appeal the learned judges had left out of account issues such as the the merits of the appeal itself, the striking out application, and the contentions as to the record. the case is reported as health professions council of south africa and another v emergency medical supplies and training .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: eastern cape high court, mthatha (dawood j, sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal is dismissed with costs. 2. the cross-appeal succeeds with costs. 3. para (h) of the order of the court below is amended to read: the municipality is directed to pay the first defendant interest on the aforesaid sum at the rate of 15.5 per cent per annum from 5 march 2008 to date of payment. judgment mpati p (maya, majiedt and pillay jja and erasmus aja concurring): [1] this appeal is against an order of the eastern cape high court, mthatha (dawood j), in terms of which the appellant, king sabata dalindyebo municipality (the municipality), was directed to pay to the first respondent (landmark) a total sum of r141 781 201,85, as damages, plus interest and costs of suit. landmark had joined the municipality as the first third party in an action in which landmark was sued by the second respondent (bulk earthworks) for payment of certain moneys as damages that bulk earthworks had allegedly suffered as a result of an alleged breach of contract. two other parties, namely the provincial government of the eastern cape and the government of the republic of south africa, were also joined as the second and third third parties respectively. at the close of the case for bulk earthworks, absolution from the instance was granted in favour of the second and third third parties. they consequently do not play any part in this appeal. in its order the court below directed the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: limpopo high court, thohoyandou (booi aj, sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. the appeal against the sentence of life imprisonment is upheld and the sentence of the court below is set aside and replaced with the following: the accused is sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. 3. the sentence is antedated to 14 march 2011. judgment majiedt ja (mthiyane dp, cachalia ja, erasmus and saldulker ajja concurring): [1] the appellant, mr samson mawela mudau, was convicted in the limpopo high court, thohoyandou, of the rape of a thirteen year old girl and sentenced to life imprisonment. he appeals against both his conviction and sentence with leave of the court below. [2] the facts underlying the conviction are briefly as follows. the appellant is the childs uncle. he had been requested by the childs mother to, in her absence, assist the child with an application for admission to a high school. at the time, the child was residing with her grandmother. on the day of the incident the appellant left a message with the grandmother for the child to go to his house, which was close by, to assist her to complete forms for admission to the school. [3] the child testified that the appellant was alone when she arrived at his home. he asked her whether she was sexually active. she denied that she was, and added that her grandmother would confirm this. he then asked her to show him her panties. she obliged and he forcefully inserted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:kwazulu-natal high court (durban) (swain j sitting as court of first instance): the appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed. the appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. judgment southwood aja: [1] the appellant is the food and allied workers union (fawu), a trade union registered in terms of the labour relations act 66 of 1995 (lra). the respondents are l ngcobo, the executrix in the estate of the late mandla ndlela (ndlela), and michael mkhize (mkhize). ndlela and mkhize instituted separate actions against fawu in the kwazulu- natal high court, durban in which they claimed damages for breach of contract. after litis contestatio, ndlela passed away and he was substituted as plaintiff by l ngcobo, the executrix in his estate, but, for the sake of convenience, i shall continue to refer to ndlela as the litigating party. the actions were consolidated and the claims were successful before the high court (swain j) which awarded damages in the sum of r107 232 to each respondent together with interest thereon at the rate of 15.5 per cent per annum from 28 august 2004 to date of payment. with the leave of the court a quo, fawu appeals and the respondents cross-appeal against the awards. fawu contends that the respondents claims should have been dismissed and the respondents contend that the awards should have been double what the court a quo awarded. at the hearing the respondents counsel did not persist with the cross-appeal. [2] ndlela and mkhize each .....
Tag this Judgment!