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

Luke M Tembani and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another

Citation(167/2021) [2022] ZASCA 70 (20 May 2022)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
DelictCivil Procedure
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
Constitutional Law

Facts of the Case

The appellants were private individuals who owned or worked farms in Zimbabwe that were dispossessed by the Zimbabwean government. They previously had justiciable claims before the SADC Tribunal. Following constitutional amendments in Zimbabwe that removed domestic court jurisdiction over land expropriations, some farmers turned to the SADC Tribunal, which ruled Zimbabwe was in breach of the SADC Treaty and ordered fair compensation. Zimbabwe failed to comply. At meetings of SADC Summit members (Heads of State), Zimbabwe's non-compliance was discussed. The Summit suspended the Tribunal's operations by not re-appointing judges from 2010, and in 2014 adopted a new Protocol abolishing private individual access to the Tribunal. The South African President participated in suspending the Tribunal and signed the 2014 Protocol. This was successfully challenged as unconstitutional in the Constitutional Court in Law Society of South Africa v President (2018). The appellants then issued notices under the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act and instituted delictual claims against the President and Government for damages arising from loss of access to the Tribunal. The respondents raised multiple exceptions to the particulars of claim. The high court upheld exceptions based on factual and legal causation for various appellants' claims but dismissed other exceptions. Both parties sought leave to appeal, which was granted.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the high court was correct in upholding the exception based on causation (both factual and legal)
  • Whether exception proceedings were appropriate to decide the factual and legal issues raised in this novel delictual claim
  • Whether the dismissal of an exception is appealable
  • Whether the conclusion that 'no order is required to be made' in a conditional condonation application constitutes an appealable order
  • Whether the respondents' cross-appeal was competent

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was upheld and the cross-appeal was struck from the roll, each with costs including those of two counsel. The order of the high court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the defendants' exception to the plaintiffs' second amended particulars of claim dated 18 March 2020, with costs including those of two counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

A court must be satisfied that a novel claim is necessarily inconceivable under South African law as potentially developed under s 39(2) of the Constitution before it can uphold an exception premised on non-disclosure of a cause of action. Where a factual situation is complex and the legal position uncertain, particularly in novel or unprecedented delictual claims, exception proceedings are inappropriate - the interests of justice are better served by determining the issues after hearing all evidence at trial with due regard to all relevant factors and circumstances. An excipient must establish that on every reasonable interpretation of the pleading, it is excipiable; if a novel claim is legally plausible, it must be determined in the course of the action. The dismissal of an exception (save an exception to jurisdiction) does not finally dispose of the issue and is not appealable.

Obiter Dicta

The Court noted that while there is no general rule that issues relating to development of the common law cannot be decided on exception, where the factual situation is complex and legal position uncertain, it will normally be better not to do so. The Court observed that the Constitutional Court's order in the earlier Law Society case for the President to withdraw his signature from the 2014 Protocol (which was complied with) was relevant background but did not determine causation issues. The Court commented that issues of prescription should ordinarily be raised by special plea rather than in opposition to a condonation application, and could thereafter be dealt with under Rule 33(4). The Court observed that the conditional condonation application neither lent itself to adjudication nor final determination on the papers as they stood, and the high court would have been better advised not to enter into it at that stage of proceedings. The Court emphasized that exception proceedings provide a useful mechanism to 'weed out cases without legal merit' but must be dealt with sensibly.

Legal Significance

This case is significant for clarifying the proper approach to exceptions in South African civil procedure, particularly in cases involving novel delictual claims. It reinforces that: (1) Exception proceedings are inappropriate for deciding complex factual and legal issues, especially where the law is uncertain or novel; (2) Courts must give novel claims the opportunity to proceed to trial unless they are necessarily inconceivable under South African law as potentially developed under the Constitution; (3) The dismissal of an exception (save jurisdictional exceptions) is not appealable; (4) Conclusions that 'no order is required' do not constitute appealable orders; (5) The constitutional imperative to develop the common law under s 39(2) requires courts to allow novel claims to be tested on full evidence rather than being struck out prematurely on exception. The case demonstrates judicial restraint in using the exception procedure and emphasizes that where claims involve potential development of the common law, they should proceed to trial where facts can be fully established and policy considerations properly weighed.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 7 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Axiam Holdings Limited v Deloitte & ToucheCase no: 303/04
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that determination of novel legal duties requires consideration of all the circumstances and every relevant factor.

  • Bernert v Absa Bank Ltd(CCT 37/10) [2010] ZACC 28
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that this Court will not readily depart from its previous decisions, including Maize Board on non-appealability of dismissed exceptions.

  • David Feldman N.O. v EMI Music SA (Pty) Ltd / EMI Music Publishing SA (Pty) Ltd(268/2008) [2009] ZASCA 75 (1 June 2009)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that an excipient is obliged to confine his complaint to the stated grounds of his exception.

  • Dudley Lee v Minister for Correctional Services(CCT 20/12) [2012] ZACC 30
    Cites

    Cited in support of the test for causation in delict.

  • Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd

Cited By 213 Cases

  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    Cites

    Authority for the principle that necessary implication can confer statutory powers.

  • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    Cites

    Cited for consideration of section 126 of the interim Constitution dealing with concurrent competence of provincial and national legislatures, now governed by…

  • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts should be loath to fulfil an advisory role.

  • Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others(CCT 54/09) [2010] ZACC 4
    Cites

    Cited to support the proposition that the common law duty to act fairly may require a hearing, and that the President must always act in accordance with the…

Practice This Case

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

(1186/2023) [2025] ZASCA 41 (10 April 2025)
Cites

Cited to note that in English law the phrase 'duty of care' straddles both wrongfulness and negligence, and is misleading in the South African legal setting.

  • Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Fick and Others(CCT 101/12) [2013] ZACC 22
    Cites

    Cited in support of the background relating to Zimbabwe's obligations under the SADC Treaty and earlier Tribunal decisions.

  • H v Fetal Assessment Centre[2014] ZACC 34
    Applies

    Applied extensively for the approach that exception proceedings may be inappropriate where the factual situation is complex and legal position uncertain, and…

  • Law Society of South Africa and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others[2018] ZACC 51
    Appeal From

    This is the High Court decision from which the Law Society matter was referred to the Constitutional Court under s 172(2)(a) for confirmation of the…

  • Legal Aid Board v The State and Others(363/09) [2010] ZASCA 112 (22 September 2010)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that condonation cannot be granted if the debt has already been extinguished by prescription.

  • Maize Board v Tiger Oats Limited and OthersCase No: 151/2001
    Follows

    Followed for the binding principle that a dismissal of an exception does not finally dispose of the issue and is not appealable, save an exception to the…

  • N K v Minister of Safety and Security2005 (6) SA 419 (CC) [also reported as 2005 (8) BCLR 661 (CC); Case CCT 52/04]
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that where factual situation is complex and legal position uncertain, it is better to refuse absolution and decide after hearing all…

  • Ocean Echo Properties 327 CC v Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (South Africa) Limited(288/2017) [2018] ZASCA 09 (01 March 2018)
    Applies

    Applied for the test that the excipient must establish that on every interpretation the pleading is excipiable.

  • The Advertising Standards Authority v Herbex (Pty) Ltd(902/16) [2017] ZASCA 132 (29 September 2017)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that exceptions should be used sensibly to weed out cases without legal merit.

  • The Trustees for the Time Being of the Children's Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd and Others(050/2012) [2012] ZASCA 182 (29 November 2012)
    Applies

    Applied for the test that the plaintiff must show that on all possible readings of the facts no cause of action can be made out and that exceptions to novel…

  • AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others; Minister of Police v AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others[2021] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the power to dismiss is an essential corollary of the power to appoint, and thus the power to dismiss may be implied from the…

  • AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa[2022] ZACC 31
    Appeal From

    The President applied to review and set aside findings and remedial actions in the Public Protector's report. AmaBhungane intervened with a conditional…

  • Andrew Barney August v The State(962/2022) [2023] ZASCA 170 (04 December 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that condonation is an indulgence not lightly granted.

  • Antonie Michael Du Plessis v Road Accident FundCase number: 443/2002
    Cites

    Cited as emphasizing the importance of the right to equality.

  • Aptitude Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd v The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another(251/2024) [2025] ZASCA 72 (30 May 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts would not readily accept an invitation to adjudicate on issues where the decision sought will have no practical effect or…

  • Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Anglo Gold Ashanti Limited t/a Anglo Gold Ashanti and Others[2021] ZACC 42
    Cites

    Cited for the interests of justice standard applicable to deciding whether to hear a moot matter.

  • Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 91/12) [2013] ZACC 13
    Applies

    Applied to distinguish executive action from administrative action and to explain that executive action may be reviewed on narrow grounds within the principle…

  • Azeem Hassan Walele v The City of Cape Town(CCT 64/07) [2008] ZACC 11
    Applies

    Applied on the audi alteram partem principle and the requirement that decision-makers act fairly.

  • Baaitse Elizabeth Nkabinde and Christopher Nyaole Jafta v The Judicial Service Commission and Others(20857/2014) [2016] ZASCA 12 (10 March 2016)
    Cites

    This court held that the National Prosecuting Authority must be independent and serve the people without fear, favour or prejudice, acting as bulwarks against…

  • Bapedi Marota Mamone v The Commission of Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims & others(260/13) [2014] ZASCA 30 (28 March 2014)
    Cites

    Cited at paragraph 81 for the principle that administrative action that fails the rationality threshold is inconsistent with the Constitution and is unlawful.

  • BE obo JE v Member of the Executive Council for Social Development, Western Cape[2021] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that public interest in the determination of the issue is a relevant factor in the interests of justice enquiry.

  • Bernert v Absa Bank Ltd(CCT 37/10) [2010] ZACC 28
    Applies

    Test for condonation applied to determine whether to grant condonation for late filing.

  • BHP Billiton PLC Incorporated v Jan George De Lange(189/2012) [2013] ZASCA 11 (15 March 2013)
    Follows

    The court follows the principle that a party relying on the refusal provisions in PAIA must provide a basis to substantiate its reliance and that the burden of…

  • Billy Lesedi Masetlha v The President of the Republic of South Africa and Manala Elias Manzini(CCT 01/07) [2007] ZACC 20
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the exercise of all public power is subject to the provisions of the Constitution.

  • Bobroff and Another v The National Director of Public Prosecutions(194/20) [2021] ZASCA 56 (3 May 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the general rule of international law that the laws of a State ordinarily apply only within its own territory.

  • Breda NO v The Master of the High Court, Kimberley(20537/2014) [2015] ZASCA 166 (26 November 2015)
    Applies

    Applied to support the conclusion that magistrates remain employees of the State and act as officers in the service of the State when performing functions as…

  • British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Limited v Minister of Health(463/2011) [2012] ZASCA 107
    Cites

    Cited for the requirement that any right in the Bill of Rights may be limited and for the obligation to have regard to international law when interpreting the…

  • Cameron Stewart Malcolm v Premier, Western Cape Government(207/2013) [2014] ZASCA 9 (14 March 2014)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that dignity is a core value of the Constitution.

  • C and Others v Department of Health and Social Development, Gauteng and Others(CCT 55/11) [2012] ZACC 1
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts must exercise restraint in appropriate circumstances and that the extent of restraint from interfering in the legislative…

  • Case and Curtis v The Minister of Safety and Security and OthersCCT 20/95 and CCT 21/95; 1996 (5) BCLR 609 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the court must try to sever the good from the bad in subordinate legislation when the bad is self-contained and can be cut out.

  • Case, Patrick and Case, Inga v The Minister of Safety and Security and Others; Curtis, Stephen Roy v The Minister of Safety and Security and Others(CCT 20/95) [1996] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the Court must try where it can to sever the good from the bad when a portion of subordinate legislation is void for uncertainty;…

  • Centre for Child Law v Director-General: Department of Home Affairs and Others[2021] ZACC 31
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that unfair discrimination must be assessed by focusing on the experience of the victim and that a classification unfair in one context…

  • Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces v Malema(535/2015) [2016] ZASCA 69 (20 May 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that legality and rationality thresholds are not lowered because decisions were made in Parliament.

  • Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education2000 (10) BCLR 1051 (CC); CCT 4/00
    Cites

    Cited on the interpretation and application of equality provisions in the Bill of Rights.

  • City of Cape Town v Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd[2017] ZACC 5
    Related To

    Referenced for the interplay between review under PAJA and legality review.

  • 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 Constitutional Court's rationality test that the decision must be rationally related to the purpose for which power was conferred, otherwise…

  • Crawford Lindsay Von Abo v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 67/08) [2009] ZACC 15
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the provision of diplomatic protection is part of the executive function of government, and courts may require government to…

  • C W v G T(867/2021) [2023] ZASCA 23 (13 March 2023)
    Applies

    Applied to establish the test for exceptions that the onus is on the excipient to show that pleadings are excipiable on every interpretation that can be put…

  • Daniels v Campbell NO and OthersCCT 40/03; 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC); 2004 (7) BCLR 735 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the importance of looking at patterns of systematic disadvantage when considering equality claims.

  • Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others2000 (3) SA 936 (CC); 2000 (8) BCLR 837 (CC)
    Cites

    The court cites this case for the central significance of dignity in the constitutional scheme and in the equality analysis.

  • De Klerk v Minister of Police[2019] ZACC 32
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law are foundational values that should inform public policy.

  • Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 122/11) [2012] ZACC 24
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished on the basis that it dealt with extradition under the Extradition Act which lays down no criteria for the President's consent, unlike the…

  • Democratic Alliance v The Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions(288/11) [2012] ZASCA 15 (20 March 2012)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the proposition that political parties have standing to promote and foster the rule of law.

  • Director-General Department of Home Affairs and Another v Mukhamadiva(CCT 61/13) [2013] ZACC 47
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts should not decide abstract or academic issues that have no practical effect.

  • Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs and Others v De Saude Attorneys and Another(1211/2017) [2019] ZASCA 46 (29 March 2019)
    Applies

    Court applied Kruger's principle that section 38 of the Constitution introduces a radical departure from common law concerning locus standi by expanding…

  • Director of Public Prosecutions: Cape of Good Hope v Trevor Claud Robinson(CCT 15/04) [2004] ZACC 15
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished on the basis that Mohamed concerned whether the South African state had acted inconsistently with the Constitution by facilitating removal of a…

  • Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Tucker[2021] ZACC 25
    Applies

    Applied to determine the two jurisdictional facts required before a Magistrate must commit a sought person to prison; confirmed that evidence adduced at an…

  • Don Andrew Watt v George Fanyana Malobola and Family and OthersLCC83/2023 (Land Court, Randburg)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that the explanation of delay must be full and frank and must demonstrate that the case bears some prospects of success.

  • Du Toit and Another v Minister for Welfare and Population Development and OthersCCT 40/01 (decided 10 September 2002)
    Cites

    Cited for the interpretation of 'spouse' and 'marriage' and as an example of reading in as an appropriate form of relief.

  • Duwayne Esau and Others v Minister of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others(611/2020) [2021] ZASCA 9 (28 January 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that it would not be appropriate to constrain executive power to requirements of procedural fairness.

  • East Zulu Motors (Proprietary) Limited v Empangeni/Ngwelezane Transitional Local Council and OthersCase CCT 44/96
    Cites

    Cited as part of this Court's recent judgments on equality jurisprudence relevant to determining the correctness of Thirion J's order.

  • Economic Freedom Fighters v Gordhan and Others; Public Protector and Another v Gordhan and Others[2020] ZACC 10
    Cites

    Cited for the nature and purpose of interim interdicts to provide adequate and effective temporary relief.

  • Electronic Media Network Limited and Others v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others[2017] ZACC 17
    Cites

    The Court cites Masetlha as an example where words were read into a statute in an interpretation exercise.

  • Elizabeth Gumede (born Shange) v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 50/08) [2008] ZACC 23
    Appeal From

    This is the High Court order appealed from; the appeal was dismissed and the order of constitutional invalidity confirmed.

  • e.tv (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Communications(1039/2015) [2016] ZASCA 85
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that both the process by which a decision is made and the decision itself must be rational.

  • Executrix of the Estate of the Late Josephine Terblanche Gouws (Charmaine Celliers N.O.) v Magnificent Mile Trading 30 (Pty) Ltd & others(594/17) [2018] ZASCA 91
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that an invalid administrative action is void from inception and never had legal force or effect.

  • Federal-Mogul Aftermarket Southern Africa (Pty) Limited v The Competition Commission and The Minister of Trade and IndustryCase No.: 33/CAC/Sep03 (Competition Appeal Court, 23 September 2004)
    Follows

    Followed for the principle that a person facing extradition is not an accused person for purposes of section 35(3) protections.

  • Federation of Governing Bodies for South African Schools v Member of the Executive Council for Education, Gauteng and Another[2016] ZACC 14
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that under our constitutional system provinces can legislate separately and differently on matters of concurrent legislative…

  • Fish Hoek Primary School v G W(642/2008) [2009] ZASCA 144 (26 November 2009)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that historically mothers have been the primary care-givers of children in South Africa.

  • Frederick Coenrad Daniel v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 34/13) [2013] ZACC 24
    Applies

    Court applies this case to hold that 'obligation' in section 167(4)(e) means a duty specifically imposed on the President to perform specified conduct, and…

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

    This is the judgment of the court a quo from which the current appeal is brought; the appeal was upheld and the order of the court a quo was set aside.

  • Giant Concerts CC v Rinaldo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 25/12) [2012] ZACC 28
    Follows

    The court follows this case's generous approach to standing and the principle that legal practitioners challenging legislative acts must show that the…

  • Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 48/10) [2011] ZACC 6
    Appeal From

    Appeal upheld in part and order of the High Court set aside on certain grounds; High Court dismissed grounds of attack based on constitutional obligations on…

  • Harksen v Lane NO and OthersCCT 9/97
    Applies

    Court applies Hugo's test for unfair discrimination, which focuses on the impact on the complainant and the nature of the power and interests affected.

  • Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Others[2013] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for describing South Africa's transition to democracy as a 'negotiated revolution'.

  • Helen Margaret Ford v Michael George William FordCase No: 52/05
    Cites

    Court cites remarks of several Constitutional Court judges recognizing that the division of parenting roles in South Africa remains largely gender-based.

  • Explore More Cases

    More Delict cases

    • Aadil Mangera obo Zaheer Mangera v Road Accident Fund2019/44093 (unreported, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, delivered 17 February 2025)
    • Abigail Muchineripi v Erina LitemweHH 195-25, HCH 2161/22
    • ABSA Bank Limited v Bond Equipment (Pretoria) (Pty) LimitedCase Number: 580/98 (Supreme Court of Appeal, judgment delivered 29 September 2000)
    • ABSA Bank Limited v Enrico Bernert[2010] ZASCA 36 (29 March 2010)
    • AB Ventures Limited v Siemens Limited(294/10) [2011] ZASCA 58 (31 March 2011)
    • Akhona Kosi v Minister of PoliceCA 17/2024 (Eastern Cape Division, Bisho)
    • AK v Minister of Police[2022] ZACC 14
    • Alex Roux v Ryand Karel Hattingh(636/11) [2012] ZASCA 132 (27 September 2012)

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 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 Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97