Peyper & Botha Attorneys Inc.

11/06/2026

🚗 Injured in a Motor Vehicle Accident in the Free State Province?

You may be entitled to claim compensation from the Road Accident Fund.

Our experienced RAF attorneys can assist you with claiming:

✅ Past and Future Medical expenses;
✅ Past and future Loss of income;
✅ Past and future Loss of support;
✅ Pain and suffering.

📞 Contact us today for professional legal assistance and let us guide you through your RAF claim.

Don’t delay — your rights matter.

05/06/2026

VACANCY: LEGAL SECRETARY / LEGAL TYPIST

12/05/2026

Commissioner for SARS v Poulter (1110/2024) [2026] ZASCA 68: a major win for access to justice in the Tax Court

On 12 May 2026, the Supreme Court of Appeal delivered an important decision in The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Poulter, confirming that a taxpayer may be represented in the Tax Court by a duly authorised person who is not a legal practitioner.

What the case was about. Ms Poulter had authorised her father, Mr Gary Van der Merwe, to appear for her in an appeal in the Tax Court relating to her 2018 assessment. SARS objected, the Tax Court excluded him, proceeded in the taxpayer’s absence, confirmed the assessment, and ordered punitive costs. The Western Cape High Court (full court) set that aside, and SARS appealed to the SCA.

What the SCA decided. The SCA held that neither section 125 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 nor rule 44(7) of the Tax Court Rules requires a taxpayer’s representative to be an attorney or advocate. On an ordinary reading, “a person authorised to appear on the party’s behalf” includes any person properly authorised by the taxpayer. The SCA therefore upheld the full court’s approach and dismissed SARS’s appeal with costs.

Why this matters (and why it’s bigger than one taxpayer).

• Access to justice and affordability: Many taxpayers cannot fund High Court-level representation for a Tax Court appeal. This judgment confirms that a properly authorised lay representative can still present the case in that forum.

• Procedural fairness: The decision is a warning against “default-style” outcomes where a taxpayer is effectively shut out because their representative is excluded and the matter proceeds in their absence.

• Clarity on the rules: The SCA’s interpretation reduces uncertainty created by earlier disputes about whether the repeal of section 125(2) changed representation rights.

• Practical impact on tax dispute strategy: Taxpayers and practitioners can structure representation (including tax practitioners, accountants, and trusted advisers, where authorised) with greater confidence—while still recognising that complex matters may warrant legal counsel.

Takeaways. If you are litigating (or advising on) a Tax Court appeal, confirm that the taxpayer’s representative is clearly authorised in writing and that the mandate covers the hearing. If SARS raises an objection to representation, this judgment will be central to the response.

In short: CSARS v Poulter strengthens fairness and accessibility in tax dispute resolution—an important development for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and SARS alike.

06/05/2026

17/04/2026

THE MINISTER BEARING THE ONUS TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED DETENTION AFTER ARREST:

Makofane William Mohlala v MEC for Transport, Limpopo and Others (843/2024) [2026] ZASCA 55 (17 April 2026)

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in Makofane William Mohlala v MEC for Transport, Limpopo and Others is a timely reminder that claims arising from arrest, detention and prosecution turn on careful, claim-by-claim analysis: a lawful arrest does not automatically make subsequent detention or prosecution lawful.

BACKGROUND IN BRIEF:

The dispute stems from an arrest connected to alleged drunken driving and a related charge. In earlier proceedings, aspects of the claimant’s case were not upheld. By the time the matter reached the SCA, the focus was on whether the state actors (across different departments) could be held liable for the detention and/or prosecution that followed, even where the arrest itself was treated as lawful.

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE SCA’S APPROACH:

• Separate the delicts. Unlawful arrest, unlawful detention and malicious prosecution are distinct causes of action. Conceding (or proving) one does not dispose of the others.

• Detention must be justified at each stage. The enquiry is not only “was there a basis to arrest?”, but also whether continued deprivation of liberty was legally justified as the process unfolded (including decisions around holding, bringing to court, and opposing or not opposing release).

• Malicious prosecution requires more than an acquittal. A claimant must still grapple with the well-known requirements (including lack of reasonable and probable cause and improper motive) and show how the prosecutorial decision-making crossed the line into delictual unlawfulness.

• Evidence quality matters. Where breath/alcohol testing (or other technical evidence) is relied upon, the litigation often turns on the reliability, admissibility, and chain of proof—not merely on suspicion.

• Multi-department cases demand clear pleadings. When several organs of state are cited, pleadings and evidence must connect the specific decision-maker’s conduct to the specific harm claimed.

WHY THIS MATTERS (BEYOND THE PARTIES):

For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of pleading and proving each leg of a liberty-related claim with precision, and of leading evidence that speaks to each decision-point (arrest, continued detention, and prosecution). For state respondents, it highlights the litigation and constitutional risk in “process drift” after an arrest—where paperwork, evidentiary gaps, or mechanical opposition to bail can convert an initially lawful intervention into unlawful detention exposure.

Bottom line: Mohlala is a useful authority for the proposition that accountability in the criminal justice chain is granular. Liberty is protected not only at the point of arrest, but throughout the state’s continuing justification for detention and the fairness of the decision to prosecute.