Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 DECEMBER 2024

High Court Errs By Setting Aside A Non-Binding Settlement Agreement

ENS
Explore more from ENS

In Minister of Department of Rural & Land Reform and Others v Thamsanqa Davis Bisset, the Supreme Court of Appeal ("the SCA") upheld an appeal against a High Court order setting aside a settlement.

South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Aslam Moosajee
Aslam Moosajee
Zameer Omar
Zameer Omar
Author LinkedIn connections

In Minister of Department of Rural & Land Reform and Others v Thamsanqa Davis Bisset, the Supreme Court of Appeal ("the SCA") upheld an appeal against a High Court order setting aside a settlement agreement in terms of section 42D of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 ("the Act") and dismissed the application that served before the High Court.

Background

The Bisset family was dispossessed of their land as a result of past discriminatory laws and as such, the family lodged a claim for the restitution of their land rights in terms of the Act. In 2008, Mr Bisset was visited by Ms Daniels, the Regional Land Claims Commissioner ("the Commissioner") and he signed a document titled "Settlement Agreement in terms of section 42D of the Act".

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Ghost Authorities: AI Hallucinations In The Courtroom

A South African Labour Court has stayed disciplinary proceedings after discovering that the chairperson's ruling relied on AI-generated, fictitious case citations. The judgment examines whether blind reliance on artificial intelligence tools constitutes a failure to apply independent legal reasoning, and what consequences flow from submitting fabricated authorities to courts and tribunals.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
ENS
ENS
Article

End Of Concurrent Jurisdiction: Understanding The New Jurisdictional Boundaries In The Gauteng Division Of The High Court Of South Africa

A significant jurisdictional change has taken effect in South Africa's Gauteng Division of the High Court, ending the concurrent jurisdiction between Johannesburg and Pretoria seats that existed since 2018. Each seat now has defined geographical boundaries based on magisterial districts, requiring practitioners to carefully determine proper jurisdiction when instituting proceedings.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
ENS
ENS
Article

Rescission Refused: Negligence Is Not Good Cause Under Rule 42(1)(a) Or The Common Law

The Supreme Court of Appeal examines whether a pension fund can successfully rescind a default judgment when its absence from proceedings resulted from internal administrative failures. The case explores the boundaries between procedural error and voluntary default, testing whether gross negligence in responding to legal process can be excused by the strength of a potential defence.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
ENS
ENS
Article

No Easy Escape From Gauteng’s Mandatory Mediation Regime

A recent Gauteng High Court judgment confirms that mandatory court-annexed mediation cannot be avoided simply because parties are hostile toward each other or believe the process will be futile. The court ordered an uncooperative defendant to participate in mediation, establishing that only exceptional circumstances will excuse parties from the process introduced by the Directive and Protocol.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr