Latest Cases

Smith v Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board (541/2023) [2024] ZASCA 170 (11 December 2024).
PROFESSION - Fidelity Fund - Liability - Money stolen by employee of attorney firm - Whether funds were 'entrusted' - Suffered pecuniary loss as a result of theft committed - Failed to prove that he entrusted R1 million to firm - Evidence shows that payment of R4 million into trust account was immaterial - R2,7 million was invested with intention of achieving profit and not entrusted - Appellant established that he entrusted R900,000 to firm - Appeal upheld in part - Attorneys Act 53 of 1979, ss 26(a) and 47(1)(g).

Director of Public Prosecutions, Limpopo v Kwinda (266/2023) [2024] ZASCA 175 (12 December 2024).
CRIMINAL - Rape - Child victim - Life sentence imposed by Regional Court - Accused pleading guilty and tendering section 112(2) statement - Admitting age of two victims as 8 years old - High Court upheld appeal against sentence - On basis that State had not proven age of complainants - No need to lead evidence of an admitted fact in terms of section 112(2) - High Court order replaced by SCA with order confirming conviction and sentence of trial court - Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s 112(2).

GOVERNMENT PRINTING WORKS v PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION (LAC). Condonation - Response to statement of case - Employer filed 84 days late - Labour Court refusing condonation - Found that explanation for delay was entirely unreasonable and unacceptable and that prospects of success were immaterial - Employers prospects of success are excellent - Has concerns that it will contravene legislation by employing employee as security service provider - Interests of justice and fairness are best served by granting condonation - Order of Labour Court replaced with one granting application for condonation.

SA STEELWORKS A DIVISION OF SA METAL GROUP (PTY) LTD v METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING COUNCIL (LAC). This appeal, which is with the leave of the Labour Court, concerns the issue of the jurisdiction of the first respondent. The Labour Court had, on review, determined that the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (MEIBC) had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the fairness of the dismissal of the third respondents (AMCU) members. It thereupon set aside the arbitration award issued by the arbitrator and directed AMCU to approach the Labour Court for the adjudication of the dispute between the appellant and AMCUs members (employees. The arbitrator had concluded that the dismissal of the employees was fair and dismissed the review application.

SELECT PPE v HOLMES (LC). Urgency - principles considered - applicant establishing proper case of urgency - inherent nature of restraints as being urgent prevails - matter heard as one of urgency
Restraint of trade - principles stated - application of principles to matter - issue of competition, protectable interest and infringement of such interest considered
Restraint of trade - protectable interest in the form of confidential information considered - employer making out proper case of protectable interest relating to confidential information - however employment with new employer does not place protectable interest at risk - breach / infringement of protectable interest not shown
Restraint of trade - protectable interest in the form of trade connections considered - employer failing to make out proper case of trade connections - no protectable interest with regard to trade connections shown to exist
Restraint of trade - breach of restraint - employment with new employer does not constitute breach in this instance - no actual competition or competing business shown to exist - nature of industry / business of new employer such that no risk to applicant as a result of employment of employee with new employer
Restraint of trade - enforcement of restraint not appropriate - employer appropriately protected in the circumstances by protection of confidential information insofar as employee may have confidential information
Interdict - requirements of interdict not satisfied - no clear right shown - no reasonable apprehension of prejudice - application refused
Costs - principles considered - contractual dispute - costs ordinarily follow result - costs however still subject to discretion - costs award appropriate