Judgments

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Van Der Watt N.O. and Others v Pillay (2026/069765) [2026] ZAGPJHC 1236 (27 October 2026).

The High Court heard an appeal by the MEC for Health, Western Cape against a judgment finding liability for damages said to have arisen from treatment at Mitchells Plain District Hospital. The appeal was dismissed with costs, including counsel taxed on scale C.

The judgment concerns an application for default judgment in a Road Accident Fund matter arising from a motor vehicle accident on 14 April 2018. The court granted the striking out of the defendant's defence, separated general damages, and ordered payment of R3 993 920 for loss of earnings together with an undertaking for future medical expenses.

The Western Cape High Court considered an eviction application under PIE arising from a fixed-term lease over a studio apartment in Llandudno. The court found that the lease had expired, that no further lease had come into existence, and that the first respondent was an unlawful occupier. The court granted an eviction order and directed vacation by 31 January 2027.

The High Court dealt with an application by a body corporate to sequestrate a sectional title owner’s estate over arrear levies and other charges. The court dismissed the application, finding that the papers did not establish the required act of insolvency, did not show reason to believe sequestration would benefit creditors, and raised service-related difficulties.

The Western Cape High Court considered an opposed application for leave to amend particulars of claim in a dispute between Sea Point Florstore and Gemstone Construction. The court granted leave to amend, found the objections unsustainable, and directed that the amended particulars be delivered within 10 days of the order.

The judgment concerns two ex parte applications in which the applicants sought acceptance of the surrender of their estates. The court said the statements of affairs did not disclose all assets with estimated values, including assets said to be exempt or potentially exempt under section 82(6) of the Insolvency Act. The applications were dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The Western Cape High Court dealt with an opposed application by Electric Safari Vehicles (Pty) Ltd to amend its pleadings in a contractual dispute with Homestead Hospitality Holdings SA (Pty) Ltd. The court said the proposed amendments involved a material change in stance and were not supported by affidavits or legible annexures. The application for amendment was refused and costs were ordered against the plaintiff.

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Fourie N.O. and Others v Sasman (2026/177730; 2026/205849) [2026] ZAGPJHC 1232 (23 October 2026).

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Ndou Attorneys INC and Another v Sheriff Centurion East and Another (2026/217232) [2026] ZAGPJHC 1215 (23 October 2026).

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Prest Business Supplies CC v Johannesburg Development Agency (Pty) Ltd (2026/001090) [2026] ZAGPJHC 1214 (23 October 2026).

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Rossgro Beleggings 1 (Pty) Ltd v Emperor Foods CC and Another (2024/098912) [2026] ZAGPJHC 1233 (23 October 2026).

The judgment gives reasons for an order made on 12 May 2026 in a contempt application arising from a divorce settlement agreement. It records findings about maintenance, transfer of a vehicle, transfer of shares, and payment to Absa Bank Limited, and states that the respondent was declared to be in contempt. The judgment also notes that the parties were married in July 2000 and divorced on 26 August 2020.

The judgment concerns a claim for damages against the Minister of Police arising from an incident on 2 February 2016 at Phola Park, KwaMhlanga. The court found that the plaintiff had proved that he was shot and wounded by police and that the defendant had not justified the arrest and detention on the evidence before it.

SAFlii has listed this judgment: M.T.J v E.C.J (2026-060216) [2026] ZAGPJHC 1216 (23 October 2026).

The High Court considered whether a Rule 43 maintenance order survived after a divorce decree that made no maintenance provision for the children. It held that the Rule 43 order lapsed on divorce and remitted the matter for an expedited maintenance enquiry before a different magistrate.