CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Citation(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Customs and Excise LawTax Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Administrative Law

Facts of the Case

3M South Africa imported Interam Brand mats (ceramic fibre mineral wool used in manufacturing automotive catalytic converters for export). In June 1990, the Commissioner initially determined the mats classifiable under tariff subheading 6806.90.90 (no customs duty payable). In April 1991, the Commissioner amended this to tariff subheading 6806.10 (attracting 20% customs duty). In July 1992, the appellant obtained rebate store registration, importing under full rebate provided goods were used for processing exports. In January 2003, the Commissioner demanded payment of approximately R27 million for underpayment of customs duty and VAT, claiming non-compliance with rebate conditions. After representations and referral to the World Customs Organisation, the Commissioner in November 2006 issued a new determination reclassifying the mats back to 6806.90.90 (no duty), effective from April 2003. The Commissioner later conceded this should be effective from April 1991. The Commissioner informed the appellant it could claim refunds for goods imported in the two years preceding the 2006 determination (November 2004-November 2006) but also demanded payment of approximately R11.9 million for alleged arrear customs duty for the period November 2000 to February 2002.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the appellant was entitled to refunds of customs duty for the period 1 March 2002 to 20 November 2004, beyond the two-year period immediately preceding the 2006 determination
  • What is the proper interpretation of 'the date of such determination' in section 76B(1)(a) of the Customs and Excise Act - does it refer to the effective date of a retrospective determination or the date the determination was actually made
  • Whether the appellant was liable for payment of arrear customs duty and interest demanded by the Commissioner for the period November 2000 to February 2002
  • Whether the time limits in PAJA applied to bar a collateral challenge to administrative decisions in enforcement proceedings
  • Whether a retrospective determination affects completed or pending transactions

Judicial Outcome

Appeal upheld in part. The dismissal of prayer 3.2 (refunds for March 2002-November 2004) was affirmed with costs. The court declared that the customs duty (R3,598,971.70) and interest (R1,890,959.72) demanded in the Commissioner's letter of 10 August 2007 was not payable by the appellant. The Commissioner was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, including costs of two counsel. The high court's costs order was amended to reflect the appellant's costs for the relief granted (paragraphs 2.2, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3), including costs of two counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi comprises the following binding principles: (1) In section 76B(1)(a) of the Customs and Excise Act, 'the date of such determination' refers to the actual date on which the determination was made, not the retrospective effective date of that determination. (2) The same expression used in consecutive subsections of a statute must ordinarily bear the same meaning unless doing so would lead to manifest absurdity or clearly frustrate the legislature's intention. (3) Where section 47(9)(d)(ii) provides that a determination may be made 'with effect from' an earlier date, this constitutes true retrospectivity (strong sense), meaning the determination is deemed to have become operative ex tunc from that earlier date. (4) Retrospective administrative determinations apply to uncompleted transactions and pending legal proceedings, not to completed transactions. (5) A collateral or defensive challenge to the validity of an administrative act raised in enforcement proceedings (as opposed to direct review proceedings) is not subject to the time limits prescribed in section 7(1) of PAJA. (6) The Commissioner cannot rely on his own series of administrative errors to enforce payment of duties that would not have been payable had the correct determinations been made, as this would be unreasonable and offend the principle of legality.

Obiter Dicta

The court made several obiter observations: (1) Griesel AJA noted that tariff classification is 'notoriously difficult' according to SARS officials, acknowledging the technical complexity of the classification system without needing to examine it in detail for this appeal. (2) The court observed that it was 'at all times open to the applicant to appeal the wrong determination and so limit its loss' under section 47(9)(e), suggesting importers have remedies available to curtail delays by the Commissioner, though this was not determinative since the appellant had not appealed. (3) The court expressed the view that the interpretation advanced by the Commissioner 'could potentially give rise to liability going back many years (as in this instance), which would be in conflict with the manifest purpose of s 76B, namely to limit claims for refunds,' indicating the court's view of the legislative purpose behind the limitation provisions. (4) The court commented that to allow the Commissioner to rely on his mistakes 'would not only be grossly unreasonable, but would offend against the principle of legality itself,' emphasizing the broader constitutional implications beyond the immediate statutory interpretation issue.

Legal Significance

This case is significant for clarifying the interpretation of section 76B of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 regarding the temporal limitation on refund claims arising from amended tariff determinations. It establishes that the two-year limitation period runs from the actual date a new determination is made, not from its retrospective effective date, thereby limiting the Commissioner's potential liability for refunds arising from long-delayed corrections of erroneous determinations. The judgment also clarifies the scope of retrospective effect of tariff determinations under section 47(9)(d), holding that true retrospectivity applies to uncompleted transactions and pending disputes. It confirms that collateral challenges to administrative acts in enforcement proceedings are not subject to PAJA's 180-day time limits. The case reinforces the principle of legality by preventing the Commissioner from relying on his own administrative errors to enforce payment of duties that would not have been owing had the correct determination been made initially. It provides important guidance on the interaction between retrospective administrative determinations, refund entitlements, and enforcement of tax liabilities in customs law.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 9 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Virgin Mobile South Africa (Pty) Ltd(1303/2023) [2025] ZASCA 77 (04 June 2025)
    Appeal From

    This is the judgment of the high court (North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, Louw J) from which the appellant appeals; the appeal was upheld in part, setting…

  • Dlamini v The State; Dladla and Others v The State; The State v Joubert; The State v Schietekat1999 (4) SA 623 (CC); 1999 (7) BCLR 771 (CC)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature is presumed to use language consistently and that one and the same expression in a…

  • EBN Trading (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for Customs and ExciseCase No. 653/98 (SCA)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that tariff classification is notoriously difficult and to explain the process of classification.

  • Namasthethu Electrical (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Another(201/19) [2020] ZASCA 74
    Applies

    Applied for the distinction between direct judicial review and defensive or collateral challenges to the validity of an administrative act, in the context of…

Cited By 103 Cases

  • Absa Bank Limited v Christina Martha Moore and Jacques Moore(20719/2014) [2015] ZASCA 171 (26 November 2015)
    Cites

    One of the recent decisions in which principles dealing with simulated transactions are discussed in depth.

  • Alan George Marshall N.O. and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
    Applies

    Applied to demonstrate the principle that evidence of consistent interpretation by those responsible for administration of legislation is admissible and may…

  • Allied Steelrode (Proprietary) Limited v Dreyer and Another(1120/2022) [2023] ZASCA 181 (21 December 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that in a notional arm's length transaction, the borrower typically must pay interest.

  • Anglovaal Mining Limited v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(411/08) [2009] ZASCA 109
    Applies

    Court applied the principle that the taxpayer's ipse dixit as to intention should not be accepted lightly and that the court must determine intention on an…

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

  • The National Director of Public Prosecutions v Victor N.O. and Others(756/2023) [2025] ZASCA 31 (31 March 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the distinction between true retro-activity and retrospectivity in the strong sense in relation to statutory provisions.

  • Anthony Simon Bock and Others v Duburoro Investments (Pty) LtdCase No 228/2002, [2003] (judgment delivered 26 September 2003)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that allegations of unconstitutionality should not be raised piecemeal or inadequately pleaded, especially in commercial matters.

  • Armgold/Harmony Freegold Joint Venture (Proprietary) Limited v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(703/2011) [2012] ZASCA 152 (1 October 2012)
    Cites

    The court cites the observation that the fiscus has historically favoured farmers and miners and allowed certain mining capital expenditure as a class…

  • Assmang (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others(311/2024) [2025] ZASCA 121 (29 August 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that constitutional issues must be properly pleaded in the founding papers.

  • Atkin v Botes(566/10) [2011] ZASCA 125 (9 September 2011)
    Applies

    The court applies Metlika's test that an interim interdict is appealable if it is final in effect and not susceptible to alteration by the court of first…

  • Aveng Mining Shafts & Underground v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(1192/2023) [2025] ZASCA 20 (17 March 2025)
    Considers

    Considered for the neutrality principle invoked by Aveng, stating that VAT should completely relieve vendors of VAT burden on inputs where they make taxable…

  • Aviation Union of South Africa and Another v South African Airways (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 08/11) [2011] ZACC 31
    Appeal From

    The Supreme Court of Appeal (majority judgment) upheld SAA's appeal and set aside the Labour Appeal Court's order. The majority held that the Labour Appeal…

  • Barnard Labuschagne Incorporated v South African Revenue Service and Another[2022] ZACC 8
    Follows

    The Constitutional Court follows its earlier binding decision that tax judgments are susceptible of rescission and that despite conclusive evidence provisions,…

  • Barrows v Benning(67/11) [2012] ZASCA 10
    Cites

    Cited at paragraph 36 for the application of the doctrine of effectiveness as a criterion for the existence of jurisdiction in recent cases.

  • Baseline Civil Contractors (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(893/2024) [2026] ZASCA 20 (24 February 2026)
    Cites

    Court cites this case as authority for principles governing when new grounds of appeal are permissible.

  • Benhaus Mining (Proprietary) Limited v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(165/2018) [2019] ZASCA 17 (22 March 2019)
    Applies

    Applied for the finding that the processing of ore is a manufacturing activity distinct from mining operations.

  • B[…] E[…] v N[…] T[…] and Others(505/2025) [2026] ZASCA 25 (11 March 2026)
    Cites

    The court cites the principle that not all decisions given during dispute resolution are necessarily appealable 'decisions'.

  • Bidoli v Bidoli & another(436/10) [2011] ZASCA 82 (27 May 2011)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that an order in personam against respondents subject to the court's jurisdiction, which can be enforced in South Africa, does not…

  • Biotech Laboratories (Pty) Ltd v Beecham Group PLC and AnotherCase No 494/2000
    Applies

    Applied the principle that interpretation should not focus on the meaning of a word in isolation but in context.

  • Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Limited v The South Africa Breweries (Pty) Limited(20156/2014) [2015] ZASCA 93
    Appeal From

    This is the judgment of Hassim AJ in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria from which the current appeal is taken; the appeal was dismissed.

  • BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services(60/06) [2007] ZASCA 7
    Cites

    Cited for the wording of section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962.

  • Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd v Vexall (Pty) Ltd and The Competition CommissionCase Number: 182/CAC/Mar20 (delivered 15 July 2020)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that an interim order has an immediate effect that will not be reconsidered on the same facts in the main proceedings.

  • Carmel Trading Company Limited v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(447/07) [2007] ZASCA 160
    Appeal From

    Appeal dismissed; this Court upheld Hartzenberg J's factual findings that Carmel was a tool of King and the sale of interests in the Falcon to Carmel was a…

  • Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd & another v Lin & another(260/2016) [2017] ZASCA 35 (29 March 2017)
    Distinguishes

    The court distinguished this case as it did not support the proposition that Menzies Aviation performed passenger services (as opposed to baggage handling) on…

  • Chapman's Bay Estate Home Owners' Association v Lötter and Others(525/2023) [2024] ZASCA 153 (12 November 2024)
    Follows

    The Court applies the principles of interpretation set out in South African Airways, particularly the limits on judicial interpretation and the distinction…

  • Chisuse and Others v Director-General, Department of Home Affairs and Another[2020] ZACC 20
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of statutory interpretation that recourse is first had to the plain, ordinary, grammatical meaning of the words in question.

  • Christoffel Hendrik Wiese and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(1307/2022) [2024] ZASCA 111
    Applies

    The court applied the meaning of 'due or payable' as established in Singh to distinguish between a tax debt that is due in the ordinary sense versus one that…

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Vresthena (Pty) Ltd and Others(1346/2022) [2024] ZASCA 51 (18 April 2024)
    Cites

    Case cited to note recent significant developments regarding appealability of interim orders.

  • City of Tshwane v Marius Blom & GC Germishuizen Incorporated and Kawari Beleggings CC(433/2012) [2013] ZASCA 88 (31 May 2013)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the starting point in statutory interpretation is the language of the provision itself read in context and having regard to…

  • City Power (Pty) Ltd v Grinpal Energy Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Others[2015] ZACC 8
    Follows

    This Court followed the consistent approach of Aviation Union relating to section 197 interpretation and applied its principles on automatic transfer of…

  • City Power (SOC) Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(1147/2019) [2020] ZASCA 150 (20 November 2020)
    Appeal From

    This is the judgment appealed from; the Tax Court dismissed City Power's claim that it qualified for tax exemption. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme…

  • Clicks Retailers (Pty) Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service[2021] ZACC 11
    Considers

    This is the Tax Court decision in the Big G matter which concluded that a taxpayer could claim a section 24C allowance where the income-earning contract and…

  • Cloete Murray NO & Another v FirstRand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank(20104/2014) [2015] ZASCA 39 (26 March 2015)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that s 39(2) of the Constitution applies only where the language of the statute is not unduly strained.

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others v Dragon Freight (Pty) Ltd and Others(751/21) [2022] ZASCA 84
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that an officer seizing goods under section 88(1)(c) must have reasonable grounds to suspect goods are liable to forfeiture.

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Bosch(394/2013) [2014] ZASCA 171 (19 November 2014)
    Distinguishes

    The Commissioner relied on NWK for the proposition that simulation may occur even if parties perform in terms of the contract; the Court distinguished NWK and…

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Capitec Bank Limited(94/2021) [2022] ZASCA 97 (21 June 2022)
    Appeal From

    The Supreme Court of Appeal (per Saldulker JA with Mocumie, Makgoka and Schippers JJA and Musi AJA concurring) upheld SARS's appeal with leave of the Tax…

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Hawker Air Services (Pty) Ltd and Hawker Aviation Services Partnership(379/2005) [2006] ZASCA 55
    Considers

    Invoked by HAS on formal grounds to challenge the validity of statutory judgments under s 40(2)(a) of the VAT Act; the court also references para 11 concerning…

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Langholm Farms (Pty) Ltd(1354/2018) [2019] ZASCA 163 (29 November 2019)
    Cites

    Cited to confirm that the interpretive approach in Endumeni is equally applicable to a taxing statute.

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Medtronic International Trading S.A.R.L(456/2021) [2023] ZASCA 20 (03 March 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the nature of SARS Interpretation Notes and necessity for consistent interpretation by those responsible for administration of Tax Acts.

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Plasmaview Technologies (Pty) Ltd(647/09) [2010] ZASCA 135 (1 October 2010)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that screens imported without tuners were correctly classified under tariff heading 8528.21.20 qualifying for a full rebate.

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Sprigg Investment 117 CC t/a Global Investment(36/2010) [2010] ZASCA 172 (1 December 2010)
    Applies

    Applied to interpret the words 'any decision' in section 86A(1) of the Income Tax Act as requiring a decision that is final, definitive of rights, and disposes…

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v The Thistle Trust(516/2021) [2022] ZASCA 153 (7 November 2022)
    Cites

    Cited to support the approach to interpretation of statutes in the context of tax law.

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v United Manganese of Kalahari (Pty) Ltd(264/2019) [2020] ZASCA 16
    Cites

    The court cites this case for the proposition that the unitary approach to interpretation applies to taxing statutes.

  • Consol Glass (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(1010/2019) [2020] ZASCA 175 (18 December 2020)
    Applies

    Applied to establish that the statement of grounds of appeal is a pleading defining the issues so that the Commissioner knows the case to be adjudicated.

  • Diageo South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(330/2019) [2020] ZASCA 34 (03 April 2020)
    Applies

    Applied to interpret the meaning of s 8(15) concerning single supply of goods or services capable of notional separation, and to determine that the section…

  • Dines Chandra Manilal Gihwala and Others v Grancy Property Ltd and Others(20760/2014) [2016] ZASCA 35 (24 March 2016)
    Cites

    Court cites this case for the principle that a statute is not retrospective merely because part of the requisites for its action is drawn from time antecedent…

  • Dirk Cornelis Uys N O and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another(869/2023) [2025] ZASCA 34 (1 April 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that to prove simulation, parties must have intended terms other than those set out in the agreement.

  • Ernst Bester Trust v Commissioner South African Revenue Service(282/07) [2008] ZASCA 55 (26 May 2008)
    Related To

    Van Blerk is mentioned as another case where a sand deposit was identified on neighbouring properties by Malans Transport.

  • Estate R F Welch v Commissioner for the South African Revenue ServiceCASE NO: 23/2003 (Reported)
    Appeal From

    Appeal against the full court of the Cape High Court (Davis J with Selikowitz and Van Reenen JJ concurring) which reversed the Special Income Tax Court's…

  • eThekwini Municipality v Mounthaven (Pty) Limited[2018] ZACC 43
    Cites

    Cited as example that it is generally not in the interests of justice to grant leave where there are no reasonable prospects of success on the merits.

  • Ethekwini Municipality v Verulam Medicentre (Pty) LtdCase no: 457/2004 [also reported as Verulam Medicentre (Pty) Ltd v Ethekwini Municipality 2005 (2) SA 451 (D)]
    Cites

    Cited as the correct version of the Woulidge judgment clarifying that the in duplum rule can only be applied where it serves public policy considerations in…

  • Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Limited v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited(CCT 105/10) [2011] ZACC 30
    Cites

    Cited for extending the pleading test in Prince to cases relating to breach of a constitutional right.

  • Firstrand Bank Limited v The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa(436/13) [2014] ZASCA 115
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that if words are unable to bear the meaning contended for, that meaning is impermissible.

  • Fusion Properties 233 CC v Stellenbosch Municipality(932/2019) [2021] ZASCA 10 (29 January 2021)
    Applies

    Applied to reject the argument that section 13 of the Companies Act should be treated as pro non scripto and to explain the balancing exercise required when…

  • Gallo Africa Limited and Others v Sting Music (Pty) Limited and Others(40/2010) [2010] ZASCA 96 (3 September 2010)
    Considers

    Considered regarding jurisdiction over movables and that the court of domicile may also have jurisdiction in respect of a movable located overseas.

  • General Council of the Bar v Mansingh(417/2012) [2013] ZASCA 9 (15 March 2013)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that a purposive interpretation may not impose a meaning on the text that it is not capable of bearing.

  • Gensinger and Neave CC & Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy(223/2023) [2024] ZASCA 49 (15 April 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the common law rule that execution of a judgment is automatically suspended upon noting of an appeal.

  • Global Environmental Trust and Others v Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others(1105/2019) [2021] ZASCA 13 (09 February 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that it is impermissible to interpret a statute according to the conduct or practice of a government functionary.

  • Henque 3935 CC t/a PQ Clothing Outlet v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(846/2023) [2025] ZASCA 56 (12 May 2025)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the submission of a VAT return quantifies liability but does not create it, and that the obligation to pay tax arises from…

  • Horn and Others v LA Health Medical Scheme and Another[2015] ZACC 13
    Considers

    Considered alongside other cases to show that section 197 cases have revolved around whether the transaction was a transfer of business as a going concern.

  • Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences and Another v Gutman NOThe citation is not explicitly provided in the judgment text, though the case was heard on 1 March 2002 and delivered on 25 March 2002 in the Supreme Court of Appeal
    Cites

    Cited for authority on the interpretation of statutes and the application of subsequently enacted legislation.

  • J R 209 Investments (Pty) Ltd and M & T Development (Pty) Ltd v Pine Villa Country Estate (Pty) Ltd; Pine Villa Country Estate (Pty) Ltd v J R 209 Investments (Pty) Ltd(617/07) [2009] ZASCA 3 (26 February 2009)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that in determining whether an order is final, not merely the form but predominantly the effect of the order must be considered.

  • Explore More Cases

    More Customs and Excise Law cases

    • Africa Century Limited v Zimbabwe Revenue AuthorityHH 271-26 (HCH 660/25)
    • Albano Antonio Manuel Da Cunha and RJA Kellie v Rangarirai Gakanje N.O and The StateHB 06-16, HC 3414-15
    • AMI Forwarding (Pty) Limited v Government of the Republic of South Africa (Department of Customs and Excise) and another(251/09) [2010] ZASCA 62
    • A M Moolla Group Limited and Others v The Commissioner for SARS and OthersCase No: 139/2002
    • A M Moolla Group Limited and Others v The Gap, Inc and OthersCase No 543/03
    • Assmang (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others(311/2024) [2025] ZASCA 121 (29 August 2025)
    • Bauxim Logistics (Private) Limited v Zimbabwe Revenue AuthorityHH 138-22, HC 559/22
    • Benchman Investments (Private) Limited v The Commissioner General, Zimbabwe Revenue AuthorityHH 90-2004, HC 8799/02

    More South Africa cases

    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) Limited
    Case No. 309/97
  • Aadil Mangera obo Zaheer Mangera v Road Accident Fund2019/44093 (unreported, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, delivered 17 February 2025)