Dispute Resolution

A short note on the civil appeals process from the Magistrates’ Court to the Gauteng Local Division.

In Special Investigating Unit v Baithusi Trading CC, the Special Tribunal was asked to suspend lease payments pending allegations of procurement irregularities. The Tribunal’s refusal to do so underscores a critical principle: even where suspicions of maladministration arise, State intervention must rest on clear evidence and sound legal footing.

The Constitutional Court’s decision in Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Zeal Health Innovations clarifies how “just and equitable” remedies under section 172(1)(b) should be applied when a public tender is declared invalid. The Court confirmed that an innocent contractor may be paid at the contractual rate-including the built-in profit margin-for services actually rendered in good faith, where the State received the benefit. However, it drew a firm line against extending contractual rights to periods of non-performance, warning that doing so would amount to an unjustified windfall and undermine accountability in public procurement.

In The Profit Hub (Pty) Ltd v Zuwon Consultants (Pty) Ltd and Another [2026] ZASCA 88, the Supreme Court of Appeal reaffirmed that commercial labels do not determine legal character. Although the parties styled their contracts as “discounting agreements”, the Court examined the allocation of risk, the source of profit, and the function of the underlying claims, concluding that the arrangements were in substance loans. The judgment sets out three hallmarks of a genuine discounting transaction-sale of receivables, transfer of risk to the discounter, and absence of the receivables as security-and explains why their absence will point to a loan.