Vonnis – Aansoek deur staat om verlof tot appèl vanaf hooggeregshof ingevolge artikel 316B van die Wet 51 van 1977 – kan net na Hoogste Hof van Appèl toegestaan word.

Evidence – expert evidence – Uniform Rule of Court 36(3), plaintiffs having alleged certain mental disorders as sequelae of their unlawful arrest, defendant seeking order that plaintiffs be admitted at a clinic for seven days for the assessment of emotional and psychological conditions – Judge in chambers granting such order. Uniform Rule of Court 36(3) – order by judge in chambers that plaintiffs submit themselves for observation at clinic for seven days for a psychiatric report.

Strafproses – hersiening voor einde van saak – klaagster getuig in taal wat nie haar eerste taal is nie – verrigtinge by voltooiing van klaagster se getuienis op hersiening tersyde gestel en saak terugverwys vir verhoor voor ander landdros.

Local government – motion in municipal council that secret ballot be held – counter request for voting to take place by show of hands in line with the standard procedure, entertained and allowed by Speaker – application to set aside Speaker’s Ruling not opposed in court – court setting Speaker’s Ruling aside and remitting matter to council. Administrative Law – Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) – Ruling by Speaker on a motion is not administrative action under PAJA (par [30] – [32]).

Praktyk – tersydestelling van vonnis – skuldenaar vereffen na uitreiking van dagvaarding alle agterstallige bedrae – daarna raak skuldenaar weer agterstallig en dieselfde dagvaarding word op sy domicilium citandi beteken, waarvan verweerder nie kennis kry nie. Kontrak – laatvaarding (“waiver”) – Hof bevind dat deur aanvaarding van betalings van agterstallige bedrae het eiser afstand gedoen van die reg om op die oorspronklike dagvaarding vonnis te kry – Tersydestelling toegestaan.

Verjaring – stuiting ingevolge artikel 15(1) van Wet 68 van 1969 - enkelvoudige dagvaarding verskil van deklarasie – vraag of enkelvoudige dagvaarding verjaring stuit – “produksiemiddele” in enkelvoudige dagvaarding word “goedere” en “dienste” in deklarasie – hof bevind dat skuld wat in gewysigde deklarasie gevorder word vereenselwigbaar is met die skuld wat in die enkelvoudige dagvaarding gevorder is – spesiale pleit van verjaring afgewys.

Jurisdiction – branch office of defendant within court’s area of jurisdiction does not vest the court with jurisdiction – distinction between Uniform Rule 4(1)(a)(v): “principal place of business within the court’s jurisdiction”, for purposes of service; and “principal place of business” for purposes of conferring jurisdiction on a court. Contract – offer and acceptance – insurance contract is concluded where insurance company’s acceptance of the proposal is posted (in casu Bellville).

Criminal law – stock theft – theft – green mealies expressly excluded from Stock Theft Act 56 of 1959 – Accused convicted under Act 56 of 1959 of stock theft by stealing green mealies, cautioned and discharged – On review conviction set aside and replaced with conviction of ordinary theft.

Expropriation – for public purpose of constructing roads – applicant in review alleging that expropriation was done for the ulterior and unauthorised purpose of making land available to a private developer so as to be part of a shopping complex to be developed – applicant further alleging that respondent’s purpose would be adequately served by the expropriation of one-third of applicant’s property – court holding that expropriated property was an integral part of the development of the shopping complex (par 5.2) – providing access to the proposed shopping complex was inextricably linked and part and parcel of the re-alignment of the road (par 5.2) – court holding that the development of the shopping complex was a development for the benefit of the public – once it is established that the expropriation is a bona fide one for public purposes the motives behind the actions of the respondent are irrelevant (par [6]) – Application for review dismissed.

Labour law – application to set aside a decision of respondent refusing to reinstate the appellant in his employment – jurisdiction. Full bench holding: (a) if a dispute is quintessentially a labour matter, the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction; (b) if reliance is placed on the provisions of the LRA, then the High Court would have no concurrent jurisdiction with the Labour Court even if the dispute raises constitutional issues; (c) the decision of a functionary of an organ of state to dismiss or refuse to appoint or promote an employee, does not amount to administrative action and is not reviewable under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000. Appellant initially sought reinstatement order – such a labour matter – high court has no jurisdiction – appeal upheld – application dismissed by full bench.

Road Accident Fund – a supplier (in casu the Free State Provincial Administration) is entitled to claim its costs directly from the Road Accident Fund.

Practice – absolution from the instance – defendant leading no evidence – plaintiff’s case based on misrepresentation – court finding that in terms of the defendant’s general terms of sale which were expressly incorporated through reference into the agreement between the parties, defendant expressly gave no warranties. Absolution granted.

Pleadings – amendment – claim against Road Accident Fund – three motor vehicles involved in collision – by amendment plaintiff seeking to shift the blame from one vehicle to another – defendant claiming that a new cause of action would be introduced if amendment were allowed – court rejecting defendant’s contention that the distinct identity of a negligent driver is a fundamental component of the victim’s cause of action – there is only one defendant, being the Road Accident Fund – court finding that this is social legislation where the Road Accident Fund is a state-funded social entity that cannot take advantage of the ignorance of the victims or poor investigation by their lawyers – amendment allowed.

Land – Eviction – Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (“PIE”) – matter referred to trial should the parties not be able to procure an agreed mediated solution.

Practice – provisional sentence granted by default – can be rescinded even after provisional sentence has become a final judgment under Rule 8(11).

Kontrak – spesifieke nakoming en interdik gevra – National Land Transport Act 5 van 2009, artikel 46 – geen finale besluit is nog geneem oor toeleesing van trein-kontrak nie – aansoek prematuur. Interdik – alternatiewe remedie – skadevergoeding is moontlik, ook statutêr. Blootlegging in Aansoek verrigtinge – Hofreël 6(11).

Delict – protrusion in road surface causing cyclist to fall and die – provincial administration held 60% liable.

Land – eviction – Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (“PIE”) – locus standi – land in former Bophuthatswana.

Practice – summary judgment – National Credit Act 34 of 2005 – plaintiff must prove compliance with section 86(10).

Hersiening – Aansoek om LUR se besluit dat Respondent hek oor openbare pad mag oprig ter syde te stel onder PAJA. Openbare pad – Aansoek om hek oor tersiêre pad aan te bring toegestaan deur LUR – applikant, eienaar van plaas aangrensend aan plaas waar hek opgerig is, doen aansoek om tersydestelling van LUR se goedkeuring om hek op te rig. Hersiening – Vraag is of die besluit om hek op te rig applikant nadelig raak en ‘n direkte eksterne regsuitwerking het. Paaie – Ordonansie op Paaie No 4 van 1968 (Vrystaat) – artikel 22(1) laat oprigting van hek oor openbare pad toe – kenniggewing aan applikant nie ‘n vereiste – hek belemmer nie vrye toegang nie. Administratiewe handeling – LUR se optrede nie administratiewe handeling wat neerkom op ‘n wesenlike aantasting van regte van applikant nie. Functus officio – LUR mag op nuwe gronde sy aanvanklike besluit heroorweeg en verander. Aansoek om Hersiening afgewys.

Employment – disciplinary proceedings – applicant seeking order restraining respondent from proceeding with the hearing of internal appeal.

Sentence - life imprisonment for rape of 9-year old retarded girl – appellant 20 year old man who had been drinking for hours before the rape – he did not plan to rape the complainant – appellant was in custody for 27 months before sentence. Appellant changed his plea to one of guilty in the middle of the prosecution case – appellant in evidence expressed remorse. Full Bench substituting life imprisonment with 18 years’ imprisonment.

Koop en verkoop – eiendomsagent – effektiewe oorsaak – eerste voorstelling opgeweeg teen latere.

Practice – costs – Review of taxation – Attorney of record – correspondent attorney – perusal fee by attorney of record allowed – attorney of record not merely a “post box”.

Criminal Procedure – Special Review – accused, represented by attorney, pleading guilty on counts of assault and trespassing – case sent on review by senior magistrate – court on review holding that the factual averments in section 112 statement do not justify, on the first count, the conclusion that the accused had the intention (even dolus eventialis) to assault, nor, on the second count, a finding of unlawfulness. Covictions and sentences set aside and case remitted to magistrates’ court in terms of section 113

Curator bonis – urgent application for appointment of – businessman missing for two weeks, having acted in paranoiac manner prior to his disappearance – curator appointed – curator ordered to furnish security to the Master.

Likwidasie – likwidateur se locus standi om ‘n skuld op te vorder – oorledene het R320 000.00 aan respondent geleen, na vyf jaar terugbetaalbaar – derde party as begunstigde benoem deur oorledene – vraag of daardie benoeming geldig is. Erfreg – pactum successorium – benoeming van derde as begunstigde het slegs beoog om regte aan derde oor te dra na die dood van die oorledene – benoeming in casu nie herroepbaar nie – benoeming nie gedoen uit blote vrygewigheid of liefdadigheid nie, maar uit erkening van behoefte om onderhoud aan die kant van derde. Benoeming van derde was beskikking oor ‘n bate mortis causa, wat ongeldig is omdat dit nie voldoen aan die vereistes vir geldigheid van testamentêre geskrifte nie – omdat benoeming van derde ongeldig is, het applikant die reg as eksekuteur om die bedrag van respondent te vorder. Voorlopige likwidasiebevel toegestaan.

Voorlopige vonnis – skulderkening waarop eerste, tweede en derde verweerders se aanspreeklikheid berus, gekoppel met ‘n sertifikaat van die verskuldigde bedrag – likiditeit van rente-komponent – gekoppel aan bank se prima-uitleen-koers – eksterne getuienis nodig om toepaslike rentekoers te bewys – voorlopige vonnis sou slegs toegestaan kan word vir kapitaal-komponent, nie rente nie. Voorlopige vonnis – tjek – vierde verweerder voer aan dat daar geen onderliggende causa was nie, en dat tjek slegs sou dien as tussentydse sekuriteit – verweerder se verduideliking meer waarskynlik as eiser s’n. Nasionale Kredietwet – onderliggende causa van skulderkening nie ‘n geldleentransaksie nie, maar ‘n skadevergoedingseis – Wet tref nie so ‘n transaksie nie. Voorlopige vonnis – tjek – reëlmatige houer – persoonlike verweer van vierde verweerder dat tjek net as sekuriteit bedoel is – in casu is eiser ‘n onmiddelike party by ‘n order-wissel, en kan dus nie ‘n reëlmatige houer wees nie – persoonlike verweer kan dus wel deur vierde verweerder teen eister geopper word. Voorlopige vonnis slegs vir kapitaalbedrag teen eerste, tweede en derde verweerders toegestaan, en afgwys ten opsigte van vierde verweerder.

Eis om skadevergoeding omdat verweerder (respondent) nie koring aan eiser (appellant) gelewer het ingevolge ‘n skriftelike kontrak nie. Kontrak – skadevergoeding – force majeure – die verskyningsvorm van force majeure waarop verweerder steun in sy verweerskrif is “graadskade as gevolg van reën tydens stroop”. Die geskilpunt wat die landdros gevolglik geroepe was om te bereg was slegs of verweerder graadskade as gevolg van reën tydens stroop gehad het. Bewys verweerder dit moes die landdros die eis afwys. Bewys verweerder dit nie moes die verhoor op kwantum van skade voortgaan. Kontrak – force majeure – kontrak bepaal dat waar ‘n beroep op force majeure gedoen word, moet eiser ‘n instansie aanwys om die geldigheid daarvan te ondersoek – dis nie gedoen nie. Kontrak – force majeure – eiser wil verweerder se beroep op force majeure afhanklik stel daarvan dat die koper met wie eiser op sy beurt ‘n rug-teen-rug koopkontrak ten aansien van die koring gesluit het, tevrede moet wees met die beroep op force majeure – kontrak bevat geen bepaling wat so ‘n houding regverdig nie. Kontrak – force majeure – as verweerder vanweë force majeure nie koring van die ooreengekome graad kon lewer nie, is hy vrygestel van lewering en kon hy sy koring verkoop waar en teen welke prys hy wil. Eiser wou lewering van die koring hê maar slegs die prys betaal vir ondergraad koring. Appellant se eis afgewys.

Regulation – validity of Wildlife-hunting regulations. Hunting of wildlife – validity of regulations, specifically as applicable to lions. What is essentially claimed by the applicants are declaratory orders that the twenty four month self-sustaining provision or regulation 71 and regulation 60 of the regulations would be invalid if applicable or made applicable to lions: (1) The definition of “put and take animal” in regulations – regulation 24 provides for period of 24 months during which the animal must have been fending for itself in an extensive wildlife system before it may be hunted, a so-called “self-sustaining provision” (par [19]). Applicants contended that there should be no self-sustaining provisions. (2) Applicants allege as to Regulations 71, if there is to be a self-sustaining provision, there should be a transitional measure that provides for a period of grace in respect of lions bred in captivity. Administrative actions – Applicability of PAJA accepted by court, without deciding the legal question whether PAJA is applicable to the making of regulations (par [48] – [50]). Administrative law – procedural fairness – applicants alleging that they were not given sufficient opportunity to make recommendations to the panel – such allegation is dismissed (par [51] – [56]), as well as allegation that respondent did not properly consider representations (par [58] – [60]). PAJA – allegation that a relevant consideration, namely the contribution of captive breeding of lions to biodiversity in South Africa, was not considered – court holding that lions bred in captivity make no contribution to biodiversity in South Africa. PAJA – section 6(1)(f)(ii) – rationality – question here is whether there is a rational basis for the 24 month self-sustaining provision in the regulations in respect of the hunting of lions bred in captivity. Court holding, on evidence as a whole, that it cannot be said that it would be practically and physically impossible to comply with the 24 month self-sustaining provision and that there are rational grounds for the 24 month self-sustaining provision. Court holding that the challenged provisions pass the rationality test. PAJA – section 6(2)(h) – reasonableness – applicants alleging that the 24 month self-sustaining provision will destroy the industry and have negative economic and social impact – court accepting that 24 month self-sustaining provision can be implemented and that it cannot be said that it constitutes a decision that no reasonable decision-maker could take. Application dismissed.