South African legal developments

The High Court in Johannesburg dismissed an appeal against the refusal of bail on new facts. The judgment deals with whether various matters raised by the appellant were new facts, including fragmentation of earlier bail applications, the strength of the State’s case, previous convictions, health, and the best interests of minor children.

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Name of Ship: MV Haralambos: Hengdeli Deyesion International Shipping Limited v MV Haralambos and Others (104/2025) [2026] ZASCA 107 (13 August 2026).

The High Court considered an application for leave to appeal against its earlier judgment and order. It discussed the statutory test under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act and the applicants' grounds, including issues said to arise from an expert determination and business rescue proceedings. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded on the attorney and client scale including the costs of two counsel.

The High Court considered an application for leave to appeal against its earlier judgment of 25 March 2026. It said the applicants had not shown a reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application. The order recorded no costs order.

The High Court dealt with an urgent review of a summons issued for the applicant to attend and testify at a Companies Act inquiry into the affairs of Bosasa Youth Development Centres (Pty) Ltd in liquidation. The Court held that the matter was urgent, but dismissed the application. It also ordered costs against the applicant.

The Western Cape High Court Full Court heard an appeal about whether a subcontract required mediation before adjudication. The court held that the subcontract made mediation the first step in the dispute resolution process and upheld the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Appeal dealt with combined appeals and a cross appeal about Securex soap packaging, contempt of court, and an Advertising Regulatory Board order. It dismissed the appeals, upheld the cross appeal, and substituted the order so that the first respondent must withdraw the Offending Packaging and the Latest Offending Packaging from every medium in which they appear. The judgment also records that the matter involved earlier ARB and High Court rulings on the packaging comparisons and the scope of the enforcement order.

The High Court in Western Cape Division, Cape Town heard a Road Accident Fund claim arising from a motor vehicle collision on 8 April 2020. The court declared the defendant 100% liable, dismissed the claim for past hospital and medical expenses, and awarded R1 525 580 for loss of earnings and general damages, together with an undertaking under section 17(4)(a) for future medical and related expenses.

The Western Cape High Court dealt with a construction adjudication dispute between Baseline Civil Contractors and the City of Cape Town. It found that the corrected adjudication decision dated 22 May 2025 was valid and enforceable, set aside the CPA determination for reconsideration, and dismissed the materials on site claim. The City’s counter application was dismissed and costs were awarded against the City.

The judgment concerns an application by the Gauteng Provincial Department of Roads and Transport to evict business occupiers from the K54 Road Reserve in Tsamaya Road, Mamelodi. The court recorded that construction on the road reserve is scheduled to commence from 27 September 2026 and granted orders including a vacate date of 15 January 2027.

The judgment concerns an application by Thutse Mining and A4G Holdings for an interdict related to alleged trespassing, mining and blocking of access on a property in Gauteng. The court found that the applicants had not shown that the first to third respondents were involved in the activities relied on for the interdict, and discharged the rule nisi as regards those respondents.

The Western Cape High Court considered an application for leave to amend pleadings in a divorce matter. It allowed the amendment in part, but ordered several allegations to be excised, including some found to be repetitive, evidential, scandalous or vexatious. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of opposing the amendment.

The High Court considered whether a separated issue of liability in a motor vehicle collision matter had been settled between the parties on 3 February 2026. It found that the plaintiff’s email did not correspond with the first defendant’s offer in all material respects and that no compromise was reached. The court ordered that the separated issue of liability was not settled on that date and awarded costs against the plaintiff.

The High Court in Pretoria gave reasons for dismissing an application about condonation under section 2(3) of the Wills Act and the validity of a document dated 19 August 2020. The court said the document did not comply with the formalities for a will, including the presence of two witnesses.

The High Court dealt with an urgent return day application concerning a rule nisi granted ex parte to perfect a general notarial covering bond. It also considered intervention applications by two related companies claiming ownership of attached stock and vehicles, and it extended the rule nisi with a supervised item level verification process.

The High Court in Johannesburg dealt with an application to enforce a restraint of trade clause in an employment contract between a beauty salon and a former employee. The court found the restraint enforceable in part and made an order limiting the restraint to a 20 kilometre radius, with directions about returning confidential records and costs.