Judgments

The High Court in Johannesburg dealt with an application to make a settlement an order of court in a Road Accident Fund matter. The judge removed the matter from the roll after raising concerns about the CaseLines bundle, the scope of the settlement, and whether loss of earnings had been settled. The reasons also discuss the need for clarity when general damages and a section 17(4)(a) undertaking are sought separately from other claims.

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Pretorius and Another v S (A340/2023) [2026] ZAGPPHC 781 (20 July 2026).

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Department of Health and Wellness Western Cape Government and Another v Brooks (C454/2024) [2026] ZAGPJHC 782 (18 July 2026).

SAFlii has listed this judgment: BMW Financial Services (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Dawood (2024/42344) [2026] ZAGPJHC 784 (17 July 2026).

SAFlii has listed this judgment: G.J v C.J (A2025/102340) [2026] ZAGPJHC 785 (17 July 2026).

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Landane v Legal Practice Council (2025-232382) [2026] ZAGPPHC 785 (17 July 2026).

The judgment concerns a review application about decisions made in maintenance proceedings and whether an existing maintenance order from the Mokopane Domestic Violence Court had been recorded or enforced. The court describes the evidence before the magistrate, refers to sections 16, 23, 26 and 30 of the Maintenance Act, and dismisses the application.

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Alphatrack (Pty) Ltd and Another v Takealot and Another (2025/181872) [2026] ZAGPJHC 786 (17 July 2026).

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Munshi v Johnson NO and Others (Leave to Appeal) (20219/2013) [2026] ZAWCHC 362 (17 July 2026).

The High Court considered an application for leave to appeal in Maistry v Legal Aid South Africa. The judge said the earlier order striking the matter from the roll was not appealable on the facts presented and dismissed the application for leave to appeal with each party paying their own costs.

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Christal and Others v Minister of Police (A2025/094504) [2026] ZAGPJHC 783 (16 July 2026).

The High Court in Johannesburg dealt with an urgent application concerning an alleged entitlement to a portion of a pension interest of around R250 000. The judgment says the amount had already been paid out and dissipated, and the application was struck from the roll with costs because it was not urgent.

The judgment concerns an urgent application about whether a minor child could travel from South Africa to the United Kingdom for a family visit from 25 August 2026 to 9 September 2026. The court found that the proposed removal was in the child’s best interests and granted leave for the travel, with video contact arrangements for the father.

The High Court considered an urgent application in a dispute between co-owned shareholders of a company. The court found that the applicant had not shown urgency and struck the application from the roll for want of urgency, with each party paying its own costs.

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Qwabe v U.S and Others (7374/2024) [2026] ZAWCHC 355 (16 July 2026).

The Johannesburg High Court judgment concerns the trial of three accused charged with murder, attempted murder, kidnapping and defeating the ends of justice. The court recorded the State allegations and the evidence, including that Itumeleng Bogopane died from multiple blunt force injuries and that Tokoloho Mokonyane was assaulted and ordered to clean the scene. The court found all three accused guilty of murder and attempted murder, and made further findings on the kidnapping and defeating the ends of justice counts.