BACKGROUND The parties in this matter were as follows: “The Homo Sapiens, Negro, Ethiopian, Semite, Israelite People of South Africa” (the “First Applicant”) who were represented by Ms. Sabina Valerie Clarisse (the “Second Applicant”); The first respondent was the President of South Africa (the “First Respondent”), and the National Treasury (the “Second Respondent”), and the
SUMMARY The Supreme Court of Appeal (the “SCA”) recently upheld an appeal against the decision of the Tax Court that had upheld an appeal by Clicks Retailers Ltd (the “Respondent”) against the refusal by the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (the “Appellant”) to approve an allowance in terms of section 24C of the
BACKGROUND In this matter, a 72 (Seventy Two) year old housewife (“main Applicant”) instituted proceedings against her husband (“main Respondent”) on the basis of public interest to obtain a declaratory order to have sections 21(1) and 21(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 (“MPA”) be declared unconstitutional and that all marriages concluded in
BACKGROUND This matter followed an on-site inspection by the South African Reserve Bank (the “Appellant”) into the financial undertakings of the Indian-based financial institution, Bank of Baroda South Africa (the “Respondent”). The Respondent was the only bank willing to take on the infamous Gupta-family business accounts after these accounts were closed by South Africa’s major
SUMMARY The taxpayer namely, B (Pty) Ltd (the “Appellant”) instituted appeal proceedings in the Tax Court against the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) (the “Respondent”).   Issue The Court in this matter was called upon to decide on whether the expenditure or loss of R18,273,271.26 (Eighteen Million Two and Seventy-Three Thousand Two
BACKGROUND The two trustees of the Ismail Habib Family Trust (“the Plaintiffs”), instituted action against the Defendant, the eThekwini Municipality, in respect of rates and penalties (“the debt”) that they had paid to the Defendant. The debt was owed to the Defendant by a previous owner of the immovable property, which the Plaintiffs had purchased.
SUMMARY The Appellant, Airports Company South Africa Soc Ltd (ACSA), published a Request for Bids (RFB) on 5 September 2017, in terms of which members of the public were invited to submit bids for the hiring of 71 car rental kiosks and parking bays at nine airports operated by ACSA.   The Respondent, Imperial Group
BACKGROUND The Plaintiff, Elizabeth Maria Basson, was the beneficiary under a life insurance policy taken out by her late husband prior to his death (the “Deceased”). The Plaintiff instituted action against the Defendant, Hollard Life Assurance Company, for the payment of the proceeds of the policy after the Defendant rejected the claim on the grounds
BACKGROUND The case before the High Court of South Africa, Limpopo Division, Polokwane concerns a written Acknowledgement of Debt (the “AOD”) entered into on 22 December 2017, between Mr. Barend Jacobus, representing Diesel Direct (Pty) Ltd (the “Applicant”), and Mr Delmar Nortje, representing Total Vaalwater (the “Respondent”), for the amount of R208 215. 97 for
INTRODUCTION This article considers the legal obligation of municipalities when it comes to sending notices, letters of demand and court documents via e-mail, “snail mail” (ordinary post) and “certified” or “registered” mail. This is important to consumers of municipalities because if the municipality in question fails to serve properly in accordance with law, the demand