Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Victor J (Horn and Wepener JJ concurring)) sitting as court of appeal. (a) The appeal is upheld with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel. (b) The order of the court below is set aside and in its stead is substituted the following order: (1) The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel. (2) The cross appeal is upheld with costs, including those of two counsel. (3) The order of the Tax Court that œ50% of the audit fees incurred for the 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 tax years is deductible from œincome? (as defined) for those tax years? is amended by the deletion of œ50? and the substitution therefor of œ10?. Judgment Ponnan JA (Shongwe and Wallis JJA and Van Zyl and Legodi AJJA concurring): [1] The respondent, Mobile Telephone Network Holdings (Pty) Ltd (Holdings), is the holding company of five directly held and a number of indirectly held subsid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Pretorius J sitting as court of first instance): The appeal is upheld and the order of the court below is set aside and replaced by an order dismissing the plaintiffs claim. In both courts there will be no order for costs. JUDGMENT Wallis JA(Mpati P, Petse and Saldulker JJA and Van Zyl AJA concurring) [1] In 1996 Mr Reinecke was appointed as a magistrate for the district of Germiston. Although Germiston was his headquarters his duties were those of a relief magistrate and he was sent to courts elsewhere in South Africa, both within and without Gauteng, to relieve magistrates who were indisposed, or absent, or to assist in clearing a backlog of cases. Sometimes he acted in regional courts and sometimes as head of a particular court. He lived in Pretoria. In September 2000, for personal and business reasons, his wife and children moved to a plot some 40 kilometres outside Rustenberg, and it was his intention to join them. As he was based...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: The Equality Court of South Africa (North West High Court, Mahikeng) (Lacock J sitting as court of first instance). The following order is made: 1. The appeal is upheld to the extent reflected in the paragraphs that follow. 2. The order of the Equality Court, North West High Court is set aside; 3. The dispute is referred back to the Equality Court, North West High Court to be dealt with de novo; 4. The respondent shall ensure that he will serve a copy of this order and founding papers stating the relief he seeks on all interested parties including (but not limited to) the Minister of Education, The Council on Higher Education, Higher Education South Africa (HESA) and affording them an opportunity to join the dispute and make representations thereon; 5. Any party so identified must respond within the time periods provided in Rule 6 of the Uniform Rules; 6. The Equality Court, North West High Court shall take steps to ensure that the dispute is determined as expeditiously...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Maluleke 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: (a) The first plaintiffs action is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. (b) The second plaintiffs action is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. JUDGMENT MAYA JA (MALAN, PETSE, WILLIS and SALDULKER concurring): [1] This is an appeal against the judgment of the South Gauteng High Court (Maluleke J) which granted the respondents claims against the appellant, Absa Bank Limited (Absa), for payment of money together with interest. The appeal is with the leave of the court below. [2] The two respondents, Mr Arif Mohamed and his nephew Mr Shiraz Abdul, are retail businessmen based in Pretoria. The litigation arose out of interest bearing deposit investment agreements which the respondents alleged they co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Kathree-Setiloane, Moshidi and Makgoka JJ sitting as court of appeal): 1. The appeal is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel. 2. The judgment of the court below is set aside and replaced with the following: The appeal is dismissed with costs. JUDGMENT MAYA JA (BOSIELO, WALLIS, PETSE JJA and MEYER AJA concurring): [1] This is an appeal against an order of the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Kathree-Setiloane J, Moshidi and Makgoka JJ concurring). The full court upheld an appeal against the order of the court of first instance (Tsoka J) dismissing the respondents application for the setting aside of an arbitration award made by Mr Clifford Mosdell (the arbitrator) in terms of ss 33(1)(a) and (b) of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965. The appeal is with the special leave of this court. [2] The dispute arose from a written sale agreement (the agreement) concluded by the parties on 4 June 2008 in terms of which the ...
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 Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Vorster AJ, sitting as court of first instance): 1. Save to the extent set out in paragraph 2 the appeal is dismissed with costs. 2. The costs order of the court below is set aside and substituted with the following:(œLanguage?) MAJIEDT JA (Ponnan, Bosielo JA, Van der Merwe and Zondi AJJA concurring): [1] This is an appeal from the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Vorster AJ sitting as court of first instance), upholding a claim for damages for the loss of the respondents (plaintiff in the court below) motor vehicle when it was stolen from the appellants (defendant in the court below) car wash premises. Vorster AJ issued a declarator that the appellant is liable to the respondent for payment of the value of the vehicle, which was to be determined later. The learned Acting Judge also made a punitive costs order on the scale as between attorney and client against the appellant. This appeal, against both the declarator and the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: North Gauteng High court, Pretoria (Botha J and Mabuse AJ sitting as court of appeal): 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. The order of the high court of 5 May 2008 dismissing the appellants application for leave to appeal is set aside and replaced with the following: 'The application for leave to appeal to the North Gauteng High Court against both convictions and sentences is granted. LEACH JA (LEWIS, THERON, PILLAY AND PETSE JJA CONCURRING) [1] Arising out of events that occurred at Eldorado Park on 22 July 1998, the appellant and two others were arraigned in the Vereeniging Regional Court on four counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances, three counts of the illegal possession of a firearm, two counts of kidnapping and a single count of the illegal possession of ammunition. The appellant denied his guilt on all charges and the trial which followed dragged on for years. During the course of the proceedings, both of the appellants co-accused passed away and, by the time...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from:North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Mavundla and Louw JJ sitting as court of appeal): The appeal is dismissed. Judgment LEACH JA (LEWIS, THERON, PILLAY AND PETSE JJA CONCURRING) [1] Arising out of an incident that occurred on 19 March 2008 in Danville, Pretoria the appellant was charged in the regional court with having raped the wife of a friend. Although it is common cause that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the complainant, he denied that he had raped her and alleged that she had consented to the act. The trial court disbelieved him. It convicted him as charged and imposed a sentence of eight years imprisonment. The appellant appealed unsuccessfully to the North Gauteng High Court against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal to this court is with leave of the high court. The appeal was prosecuted solely against the conviction. [2] Before dealing with the merits of the appeal, it is necessary at the outset to deal with the test applied by the high co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from:Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou (Hetisani J sitting as a court of first instance): 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court are set aside.JUDGMENT Tshiqi JA (Navsa ADP and Malan JA concurring): 1] The appellants, Alfred and Kenneth Khorommbi, were each convicted in the Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou, on two counts of rape and sentenced to effective terms of 23 and 21 years imprisonment respectively. They now appeal to this court against both the convictions and sentences, leave having been granted by that court, (per Booi AJ), in respect of the first appellant and subsequently in respect of the second appellant (perVictor J). 2] The appellants were implicated through the evidence of the two complainants who testified that they met the two appellants and an unidentified male whilst walking together in M Village on their way to I Village, Venda. The two appellants were walking in the opposite direction towards M Village. The fir...
Tag this Judgment!