The Legal Law Reports

09/03/2026

08/03/2026

19/11/2025

Our firm, Jagga & Associates, recently secured a High Court order in a sensitive matter involving parental rights and guardianship under the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.

We represented a devoted mother seeking the appointment of her fiancé as co-guardian to her minor child, while also applying for the termination of the biological father’s parental rights and responsibilities.

The application was brought under sections 18, 24, and 28 of the Act, and was grounded in a detailed and deeply personal founding affidavit outlining a history of abuse, neglect, and abandonment by the respondent.

Despite previous attempts to facilitate contact and co-parenting, the respondent repeatedly failed to contribute meaningfully—emotionally, financially, or otherwise—to the child’s life. Instead, his conduct had given rise to multiple protection measures and maintenance proceedings.

The Court granted our application, recognising that the relief sought was aligned with the best interests of the child—the paramount consideration in all matters involving minor children.

19/11/2025

Jagga & Associates recently secured a successful outcome for our client, Hudaco Trading (Pty) Ltd, in a matter before the Labour Court concerning the enforcement of restraint of trade and confidentiality undertakings.

The case involved two former employees of the applicant, who had held senior roles within the applicant’s business division. After their resignations, both individuals became involved with Sniperverse (Pty) Ltd, a competitor.

The applicant alleged that confidential information—such as pricing, supplier and client data, and market strategy—had been accessed and used by the respondents to solicit business from the applicant’s clients.

The application was brought on an urgent basis. The key legal issues before the court were:

Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to enforce a restraint flowing from a sale of business and related employment contracts;

Whether the applicant had a protectable interest;

Whether there was a reasonable apprehension of harm;

Whether the respondents’ conduct warranted final interdictory relief.

The Court found that:

The restraint of trade and confidentiality provisions in the sale of business and employment agreements were valid and enforceable;

The conduct of the respondents, particularly the contradictory and evasive nature of their affidavits, supported the applicant’s version of events;

The applicant had established a clear right and a reasonable apprehension of harm;

The respondents had failed to provide a credible explanation for their involvement with prospective clients of the applicant.

Accordingly, the Court granted a final interdict restraining the respondents from using or disclosing the applicant’s confidential information and from soliciting its clients.

The order applies in Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, and the Western Cape until the end of October 2027.

19/11/2025

Our firm Jagga & Associates had the privilege of acting on behalf of the applicant, Plantcor Mining.

The case provides important clarification on the application of section 131 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 and the circumstances in which business rescue will be preferred over liquidation.

Plantcor Mining, as the primary creditor of Saldomate with a claim exceeding R266 million, approached the Court on an urgent basis to place the company under business rescue.

The application arose from a deadlock between the shareholders of Saldomate, which had left the company paralysed and unable to trade since June 2025. Despite holding valuable assets, including coal stockpiles worth approximately R50 million, Saldomate was unable to pay its debts or conduct its affairs in the ordinary course. Allegations of unauthorised coal sales and diversion of proceeds further eroded trust between the shareholders and directors.

The Court accepted our client’s position that Saldomate was financially distressed and that liquidation would not only result in the loss of mining licences but also harm creditors, employees and the local community.

By contrast, business rescue offered a viable pathway to preserve value, break the deadlock, and achieve a better outcome than immediate liquidation. The Court accordingly granted an order placing Saldomate under supervision in terms of section 131(4) of the Companies Act, and appointed two joint business rescue practitioners, Juanita Damons and Ralph Lutchman, to assume control of the company’s management.

This judgment is a timely reminder of the important role business rescue plays in safeguarding viable enterprises, particularly where shareholder disputes threaten to destroy value. It confirms that business rescue is not only a mechanism for distressed companies but also a vital tool to protect creditors, employees and the broader economy when governance deadlock renders a company incapable of functioning.

08/01/2025

Defamation Lawsuit: Latari House (Pty) Ltd and Others v Thabiso Danca and Others

In a defamation lawsuit that highlights the complex interplay between allegations of racism, public perception, and the power of social media, Latari House (Pty) Ltd and its co-owners successfully secured a judgment against Christopher Logan for baseless accusations that led to significant reputational and financial harm.

Hanks Olde Irish Pub and its sister establishment, Love Thy Neighbour, operated by Latari House, became the center of a viral controversy in December 2022. On 1 December, a doorman at Hanks asked a patron to verify his age. The patron, Mr. Thabiso Danca, allegedly inebriated, refused and made racially and xenophobically charged remarks toward the doorman. This incident escalated when Christopher Logan, claiming to support Danca, led a group to Hanks the following day, aggressively accusing the business of racism. Logan’s confrontation was recorded on video and uploaded to social media platforms.

The Fallout The video, which included inflammatory and defamatory accusations, quickly went viral, receiving widespread coverage on mainstream media outlets and online platforms. The accusations painted Hanks as an establishment with a "racist admission policy," leading to protests outside its premises, threats of violence, and a sharp decline in patronage. The plaintiffs closed their businesses during the busiest holiday trading period, causing substantial financial losses. The public backlash was so intense that the plaintiffs feared for their safety and had to seek therapy to cope with the trauma.

The Legal Action The plaintiffs—Latari House, co-owners Viron and John Papadakis, and the doorman, Freddy Kalenga—filed a defamation suit against Logan. They argued that his statements were baseless, malicious, and intended to harm their reputations. Logan failed to defend himself adequately in court, and evidence presented showed that the alleged racist policy did not exist. The plaintiffs had built a strong reputation over 30 years of business, operating a Non-Profit Organization (NPO) that served underprivileged communities.

The Court’s Findings Judge Van Zyl found Logan’s actions and statements to be “sensational and emotionally charged,” aimed at maximizing social media virality rather than pursuing the truth. Logan's failure to apologize and his threats to involve the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) further demonstrated his intent to damage the plaintiffs' reputation. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding:

R500,000 in special damages to the business.

R250,000 in general damages to each of the co-owners.

Costs on a punitive attorney-client scale.

This case serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of defamatory statements in the digital age. While addressing critical issues like racism is important, unverified accusations can irreparably harm reputations and livelihoods.

26/08/2024

Case Summary: CB v MRB [2024] ZAGPPHC 805

In a divorce-related dispute, the applicant sought further contributions towards her legal costs and an increase in maintenance, despite failing to show a material change in circumstances.

The applicant, an unemployed housewife without post-matric qualifications, has been financially dependent on the respondent since 2001. The initial maintenance order provided R15,000 monthly and a R20,000 contribution towards legal costs, which she argued is now insufficient.

Facts: The parties were married out of community of property with accrual. The applicant argued she could no longer meaningfully provide for their child or cover legal fees with the existing support. She requested R200,000 for further legal costs, citing her need to employ a forensic auditor and additional legal representation.The respondent contended that the application was an attempt to prolong litigation and unjustly deplete his resources.

Discussion: The court found that the applicant’s lack of a material change did not bar her application for additional legal cost contributions. However, the court emphasised ed that the process should not be exploited to prolong litigation or drain the respondent’s finances. It was highlighted that while courts may show grace to applicants in such cases, it should not be abused.

Order: The court ordered the respondent to contribute R200,000 towards the applicant’s legal costs, funded from the proceeds of the sale of their matrimonial home. The respondent was also allowed to withdraw R100,000 for his own legal costs from the same source. The costs of the application were made costs in the cause.

KOK AJ

23/08/2024

Case Summary: Cassim v Ndame [2024] ZAGPPHC 794

In a dispute over the right to occupy rented residential premises, the applicants, husband and wife, sought to reclaim possession of their home after being dispossessed by the respondent. The court dismissed their application, finding that the applicants were not in peaceful and undisturbed possession at the time of the alleged spoliation.

Facts: The applicants had occupied the premises under a 12-month lease agreement with the respondent. However, due to the husband's incarceration and subsequent default on rent payments, the respondent's attorneys issued a notice demanding payment, failing which the lease would be terminated and the premises vacated.

During this period, Ms Cassim, the wife, left the premises to visit relatives, leaving her brother-in-law, Mr. Essack, in the home. Upon returning, Essack found three men occupying the premises, who later changed the locks on the respondent's instructions. The respondent’s attorneys then informed Ms Cassim that the premises had been vacated and instructed her to remove their belongings.

Application: The applicants filed an urgent application for a mandament van spolie, seeking to restore their possession of the premises and for the respondent to provide the keys to the new lock or restore the old lock. They argued that they were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises when the respondent unlawfully changed the locks and installed the three men, effectively dispossessing them without a court order.

Discussion: The court examined whether Ms Cassim and the applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises at the time of the alleged spoliation. It was noted that Ms Cassim had been notified of the lease cancellation due to non-payment and was aware that she was required to vacate the premises. Despite her claim that she continued to remain on the property, the court found that she had no lawful basis to do so. The court emphasised that she knew the lease had ended due to her breach, and therefore, she could not have been in peaceful possession.

Findings: The court determined that at the time of the alleged spoliation, the applicants were not in possession of the premises. The termination of the lease, coupled with their failure to pay rent, meant they had lost possession of the property. The presence of their movables at the premises did not revive their possession. The court concluded that the applicants were not in peaceful and undisturbed possession and thus could not have been unlawfully dispossessed.

Order: The application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the application.

TEFFO J