Judgments

The Western Cape High Court considered a review of the City of Cape Town’s approval of building plans for two Sea Point erven. The court extended the PAJA 180 day period, reviewed the approvals and declared that they did not comply with Item 41(e)(i) and Table 5, but did not set the plans aside. It also declared how Item 41(e)(i) and Table 5 are to be read for GR4 common boundary building lines.

The judgment concerns an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on 17 August 2026. The court referred to the Superior Courts Act and cited S v Smith and S v Malgas when considering whether another court may reach a different conclusion. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was granted to the full bench.

The Western Cape High Court considered an application for leave to appeal against an order granting absolution from the instance. It summarised the parties' arguments on alleged fraudulent non-disclosure, the Consumer Protection Act, quantification, and the form of the leave to appeal notice, and dismissed the application.

The High Court dealt with an application for summary judgment and a Rule 46A application concerning leasehold rights in Waterfall Country Estate. It found that the respondent had not disclosed a bona fide defence to the monetary claim, but that the matter could not proceed to judgment because pre-summons delivery of the s 129 notice had not been sufficiently established. The proceedings were adjourned under s 130(4)(b), with directions for fresh compliance steps and a reserve price in the region of R6 million noted for the later Rule 46A enquiry.

The Western Cape High Court dealt with an application for leave to appeal arising from Rule 43 proceedings. The court recorded that the application concerned a refusal of a postponement and a costs contribution order, and it dismissed the leave to appeal application. The court also ordered the respondent’s legal representatives to pay the costs of the leave to appeal application on an attorney and client scale, de bonis propriis, including senior counsel's costs.

The Western Cape High Court considered applications for leave to appeal in a matter about restraint of trade, confidentiality and non-solicitation undertakings. The Court dismissed all four leave to appeal applications and made no order on Ovex's section 18 application. It also ordered the respondents to pay the costs of the leave applications, including the costs of two counsel, on Scale C.

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Fetakgomo Tubatse Local Municipality v KIPP Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (137492/25) [2026] ZAGPPHC 975 (7 September 2026).

The High Court dealt with an unopposed application by Business Partners Limited for a money judgment of just over R1.6 million and an order declaring a residential property specially executable. The matter was postponed to 1 February 2027, and the court gave reasons for that postponement.

The Western Cape High Court dealt with an opposed motion about the interpretation of a settlement agreement linked to a divorce and a dispute over the transfer of a property in Stilbaai. The court found that the papers raised a genuine dispute of fact and dismissed the application with costs. It also held that two late affidavits were inadmissible.

The judgment concerns an application for leave to appeal in a matter about the disposal and transfer of two motor vehicles by a company in liquidation. The court considered arguments about the ordinary course of business, retrenchment packages, and the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. Leave to appeal was granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg.

The High Court in Johannesburg dealt with an exception in a dispute arising from an alleged cyber-fraud. The court said the plaintiff had pleaded enough facts for claims based on the payment of R6,235,391.61 and the later forensic investigation costs of R345,977.50, and dismissed the exception.

The Western Cape High Court dismissed an application to strike out and granted a final interdict in favour of Cape Union Mart International and Mr Krawitz. The order restrains the respondents from making certain statements linking the applicants to Israel, genocide, the Israeli army, or the killing of children, and from preventing access to Cape Union Mart stores. The court also ordered that the respondents comply with the Regulation of Gatherings Act during protest action at the stores, and each party is to pay their own costs.

The High Court dealt with an opposed application for summary judgment arising from a residential mortgage-loan transaction and related indemnity documents. It granted summary judgment, declared the immovable property specially executable, and set a reserve price for a sale by the Sheriff. The order is suspended for six months from the date of the order.

The court considered an urgent interim application about a steam train locomotive that is the subject of pending ownership actions. It amended an earlier interim order so that the respondent is restrained from using the locomotive in specified ways while those actions continue. The court also reserved costs for the trial judge deciding the ownership issue.

The Western Cape High Court dealt with an unopposed appeal arising from eviction proceedings involving the Tommy Joubert Trust and Mr Hassne. It granted condonation, upheld the appeal, set aside the magistrate's order, and remitted the matter to the court a quo for determination of the merits. The judgment says the Trust's later resolution and ratification cured the procedural defect raised about locus standi.

The Western Cape High Court heard an urgent application by Agrisa Commodities Pty Ltd for a stay of arbitration proceedings pending a review application. The judgment records a dispute about a jurisdictional challenge, the wording of a notice under clause 16 of the SAGOS agreement, and whether the point in limine was prescribed. The court granted a stay of the arbitration proceedings pending finalisation of the review application in Part B and ordered costs against the third respondent.