- SemantisAI Judgment summaries.
- Archive
- Page 8
Archive
![Peter vs City of Johannesburg MM and City of Power case no 25039/21 2024 [ZAGPJHC]](https://media.beehiiv.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,width=800,height=421,fit=scale-down,onerror=redirect/uploads/publication/thumbnail/6645f3a5-b6b3-4c99-81c1-b324371dd951/landscape_DALL_E_2023-10-19_13.55.04_-_Photo_of_a_stylish_logo_for_a_legal_semantic_search_firm_named__Semantis.AI_._A_magnifying_glass__which_has_nodes_interconnected_to_depict_semantic_se.png){kind=logo}
Peter vs City of Johannesburg MM and City of Power case no 25039/21 2024 [ZAGPJHC]
A court has the inherent jurisdiction to strike out a defence as a sanction for a party's egregious and deliberate defiance of a court order, especially where such defiance constitutes an abuse of the court process and the interests of justice are served by striking out the defense.
Divine Inspiration Trading 205 (Pty) Ltd v Gordon and Others (22455_2019) [2021] ZAWCHC 38; 2021 (4) SA 206 (WCC) (3 March 2021)
in the context of litigation, where medical records are sought and where the law requires disclosure the duty of confidentiality imposed by legislation and ethical rules must yield to the requirements of the legal process.
South African Forestry Co Ltd v York Timbers Ltd 2005 (3) SA 323 (SCA)
This case highlights a fundamental principle of contract law: the obligations of the parties are defined by the terms of the contract itself, as interpreted according to established legal principles. The court's role is not to impose its own notions of fairness or equity but to enforce the contract as agreed upon by the parties, within the bounds of the law. This principle was central to the court's decision, particularly in rejecting the argument for an implied term requiring the parties to act in accordance with reasonableness, fairness, and good faith beyond the express terms of the contract.
Legal Practioners Indemnity Insurance Fund v Road Accident Fund (046038_2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC
The Minister's adoption and publication of the RAF 1 Form and the Board Notice were found to be unlawful due to various reasons, including lack of proper consideration, failure to comply with constitutional rights, and encroachment on the Minister's powers.
Tahilram v Trustees of the Lukamber Trust and Another (845_2020) [2021] ZASCA 173; 2022 (2) SA 436 (SCA) (9 December 2021)
When parties agree to refer a matter to a valuer, the valuer's decision is final and binding on them once communicated. The valuer is then functus officio, meaning they are not permitted to unilaterally withdraw or amend their valuation.
FHP Zimbali residence No. 5B Shareblock Company (Pty) Ltd v Studio Investments CC [2023] ZAGPJHC 933 (21 August 2023)
An appeal may be dismissed if the decision sought will have no practical effect or result, except possibly in relation to costs, and exceptional circumstances are required to justify interference on appeal.
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Wilhelm Pretorius and Others [2023] ZASCA 155 (17 November 2023)
In this case the court considered the mootness of the matter but also assessed whether it was in the interests of justice to decide on the appeal despite its mootness. The court underlined the importance of ensuring that decisions are made in the interests of justice, even if the practical effect of the decision may be limited due to changed circumstances.
Frantzen v Road Accident Fund (331/2021) [2022] ZASCA 107; [2022] 3 All SA 657 (SCA); 2023 (1) SA 52 (SCA) (15 July 2022)
This case outlines the requirements for an expert to rely on scientific literature in their evidence. The expert must affirm the correctness of the statements in the publication, and the publication must be authored by a reputable or experienced person in the field.
Sasol Gas (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others [2024] ZACAC 2 (5 March 2024)
The Competition Act's provisions, particularly Section 3(1A), establish a framework for concurrent jurisdiction over competition matters across all sectors, including those under the purview of sector-specific regulators like NERSA.
NASASA Cellular (Pty) Limited v South African Post Office Limited [2010] ZAGPPHC 90 (23 August 2010)
For an issue to be separated for preliminary determination under Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court, it must be shown that the separation would lead to a more convenient and expedient resolution of the litigation. The court must be satisfied that the issues can be conveniently decided separately without prejudice to the parties and that such separation would indeed facilitate the resolution of the case.