South Africa: Court Procedure

The Competition Appeal Court recently examined the extent to which South Africa's Competition Commission must investigate complaints before declining to pursue them, and whether complainants can challenge such decisions. In Nevilles Tours and Logistics v The Competition Commission, the court addressed a bus operator's allegations of predatory and excessive pricing by dominant competitors, finding the Commission's initial investigation inadequate and setting new standards for meaningful inquiry.

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.

A KwaZulu-Natal High Court judgment dismisses an aspiring legal practitioner's application for leave to appeal after she was found to have made deliberate false statements and material non-disclosures under oath during her admission application. The court's decision reinforces the profession's unwavering standards for honesty and integrity, distinguishing between negligent omissions and deliberate dishonesty in the admission process.

The Johannesburg High Court has published lead times for setting matters down for hearing, revealing significant delays across various case types. With opposed applications facing 18-week waits and long-duration trials not being heard until 2028, the bulletin raises questions about court capacity and potential solutions to address mounting backlogs.

A critical analysis of the South African High Court's decision in Soft Coffee v Nonnas Pasta reveals a judgment that correctly applied the notional use doctrine and dismissed an improperly pleaded prior use defence, yet failed to distinguish between different forms of trade mark infringement. The court's conflation of sections 34(1)(a) and (b) resulted in an overbroad interdict that extends beyond what the legal reasoning can support, particularly regarding the respondent's company name versus product brand

A South African patent court ruled in favour of Astellas Pharma against generic drugmaker Cipla, preventing the sale of their generic overactive bladder treatment. The dispute centered on a formulation patent for mirabegron and highlighted the critical role of expert witnesses in helping courts understand complex pharmaceutical inventions and food-effect interactions.

Discussions at the Civil Law Update Seminar held on 22 May 2026, hosted by the Pretoria Attorneys Association, provided important insight into the continued implementation of the Gauteng Division’s mandatory...

South African prescription law is more nuanced than a simple three-year countdown. The critical question is not when an event occurred, but when a claimant possessed sufficient knowledge to recognize they may have a claim—a determination that depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

A private hospital patient's leg amputation following an untreated ruptured aneurysm led to complex medical negligence litigation involving multiple defendants. When the plaintiff's legal team delayed suing a key physician based on a strategic decision to pursue vicarious liability, the court had to determine whether the claim had prescribed under South Africa's three-year limitation period.