31/08/2026
[In Legalbrief Case Law Briefs]
SETTLEMENT REACHED OUTSIDE LITIGATION CANNOT BE MADE AN ORDER OF COURT
In CV Projects (Pty) Ltd v Adaptfin (Pty) Ltd and Others the Eastern Circuit Local Division (Thembalethu) held that for a settlement agreement to be made an order of court it must relate – directly or indirectly – to a lis between the parties. CV Projects and Adaptfin concluded a settlement agreement on 20 March 2026 and CV Projects sought, under Rule 41(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court, to have it made an order of court. Rule 41(4) permits judgment on a settlement agreement relating to "proceedings" that have not been carried out. Relying on Eke v Parsons 2016 (3) SA 37 (CC) para 25, Valor IT v Premier, North West Province 2021 (1) SA 42 (SCA) para 52, and Ekurhuleni City v Rohlandt Holdings CC 2025 (1) SA 1 (CC) paras 48–50, the court held that an order must be "competent and proper," relating directly or indirectly to a lis between the parties; agreements concluded outside litigation cannot be converted into court orders merely for enforcement convenience. The founding and replying affidavits disclosed no pending proceedings, no forum and no case number, and the settlement itself recorded only that the first respondent "had commenced" proceedings, with a jurisdiction clause suggesting none were pending. Counsel's argument for a wide reading of "indirectly," drawing on Ex parte Le Grange, was rejected as inconsistent with binding Constitutional Court authority.
The application to have the settlement agreement of 20 March 2026 made an order of court was dismissed.
Read the summary (subscribers only) or view the judgment:
Summary: https://bit.ly/4gIRNgb
Judgment: https://bit.ly/46yN8bK
Stay informed with daily case law and legal news updates. Subscribe to Legalbrief: https://bit.ly/4xNYd53