Tag Archives: Van der Westhuizen J.

Marthinus David de Klerk v Griekwaland West Cooperative CC

Posted on by
1
Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date Judgment Date Majority Author  Vote
CCT 187/13  Northern Cape Division, 28 Nov. 2011
Northern Cape Division (Full Bench), 30 Aug. 2013		 13 May 2014 19 Jun. 2014 Van der Westhuizen J  Unanimous

By Michael Mbikiwa on 25 June 2014

The central legal question in this case is whether a debt restructuring proposal, purportedly sent to a creditor in terms of section 86(1) of the National Credit Act, is an act of insolvency for the purposes of section 8(g) of the Insolvency Act. However, in a unanimous judgment by van der Westhuizen J, the Constitutional Court (the “Court”) refused the application for leave to appeal without needing to reach this central question. Continue reading →

Loureiro and Others v iMvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd

Posted on by
1
Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date Judgment Date Majority Author  Vote
CCT 40/13 South Gauteng High Court, 30 Sep. 2011
SCA, 15 Mar. 2013 		 6 Nov. 2013 20 Mar. 2014  Van der Westhuizen J  Unanimous

By Duncan Wild on 23 March 2014

Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd (“iMvula“) was hired to provide security guards to guard the home of Lincio Loureiro (“Loureiro“) and his family. In January 2009, an armed robbery occurred at the house after a man pretending to be a police was allowed entry to the house by a guard employed by Imvula.

The Constitutional Court found that iMvula had breached its contractual duty, owed to Loureiro, not to allow access to the premises to any person without authorisation. In addition, that iMvula, as a security company, owed a duty to prevent harm, and in addition, the guard on duty had breached that duty by negligently failing to take the necessary precautions in allowing the disguised robber access. Continue reading →

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another v Nontombi Masingili and Others

Posted on by
Reply
Case No. Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date Judgment Date Majority Author  Vote
CCT 44/13 Western Cape High Court, 20 Mar. 2013 27 Aug. 2013 28 Nov. 2013 Van der Westhuizen J. Unanimous

By Sarah McGibbon and Duncan Wild on 28 November 2013

This case appears before the Constitutional Court by way of confirmation proceedings in terms of section 172(2) of the Constitution, following Blignaut J and Van Staden AJ of the Western Cape High Court (“WCHC“) declaring section 1(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (“the impugned provision“) (which sets out the definition of aggravating circumstances in the context of robbery with aggravating circumstances) unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Court, in an unanimous judgment authored by Justice Van der Westhuizen (Chief Justice Mogoeng, Deputy Chief Justice Moseneke, and Justices Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, Nkabinde, Skweyiya and Zondo, as well as Acting Justice Mhlantla concurred) refused to confirm the High Court’s declaration.  Continue reading →

Tulip Diamonds FZE v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others

Posted on by
Reply
Case No.
 Lower Court Judgments Hearing Date Judgment Date Majority Author
 Vote
CCT 93/12 South Gauteng High Court, 9 Jun. 2011
SCA, 7 Sep. 2012		 26 Feb. 2013 13 Jun. 2013 Van der Westhuizen J. 6-3

The issue is whether Tulip Diamonds FZE (“Tulip“), an entity incorporated in Dubai, has legal standing to challenge a decision by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to give assistance to the Belgian authorities following a Letter of Request for such assistance sent under the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act 75 of 1996 (“the Act“).  The documents are required in a criminal investigation into a Belgian company, Omega Diamonds. The South African authorities were requested to search and seize certain documents from a South African company, Brinks (Southern Africa) (Pty) Ltd (“Brinks“), related to shipments of diamonds from Angola to Tulip in Dubai.  The SCA held that Tulip had no standing to challenge the decision and the issuance of a subpoena by the Kempton Park Magistrate’s Court requiring Brinks to produce the relevant documents, because Tulip did not have a sufficient interest in those documents.  According to the SCA, Tulip did not show that the documents in question were confidential or that Brinks had a contractual duty to preserve their confidentiality, and so Tulip had no proprietary right in the documents.   Continue reading →