Koutroulis and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Another (2025-121587) [2025] ZAGPPHC 765 (31 July 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
2025-121587
Judge
E van der Schyff
The court found that the attachment of Mr. Koutroulis's Nedbank account was incomplete and invalid because notice of attachment was not given to all interested parties as required by Rule 45(8)(c)(i)(a). Rule 45(12) does not dispense with the notice requirement, and the two rules operate in tandem. The Sheriff’s own return confirmed that satisfaction of the writ had not been demanded from the judgment debtor. The court relied on Riordan v First National Bank Limited and others, which held that irregular attachments without proper notice must be set aside. Furthermore, the summons was not effe…
Modiba v Clicks Retailers (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR986/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 323 (31 July 2025)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR986/23
Judge
L Erasmus
The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a dismissal arbitration award after finding a commissioner relied on hearsay and speculation and blocked key witness evidence.
South African Legal Practice Council v Dube (Leave to Appeal) (23500/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 787 (31 July 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
23500/2020
Judges
N Davis, M Lenyai
The High Court refused a legal practitioner’s application for leave to appeal his striking off, holding that he showed no reasonable prospects of success or other compelling reason.
City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Municipal Employees and Civil Servants Union and Others (2025/024810) [2025] ZALCJHB 331 (31 July 2025)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
2025/024810
Judge
R Daniels
The court found that the strike notice issued by the Union on 19 February 2025 was defective as it failed to identify the dispute with reasonable clarity and did not provide the required seven days' notice to the City, as mandated by section 64(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant did not establish that all individual respondents were engaged in designated essential services, as its allegations were contradicted and not substantiated with specific evidence. The respondents provided a schedule identifying those not engaged in essential services, and the applicant failed to rebut th…
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment was so thinly reasoned and so affected by confusion, disregard of evidence, and failure to address central issues that it constituted a total failure of justice and breached the rule of law and section 34. In addition, the substituted order it granted in favour of Mr Makate was not properly before it because there was no cross-appeal. The appeal therefore had to succeed and the matter be remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted panel of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Maqashalala v Consol Glass and Others (JS542/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 327 (31 July 2025)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JS542/23
Judge
R Itzkin
The Labour Court held that the pleaded case fell within its jurisdiction as an automatically unfair dismissal claim, but allowed time to withdraw a pending bargaining council referral.
Bhijal Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another v Tongaat Paper Company (Pty) Ltd and Others (D12267/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 47 (31 July 2025)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
D12267/2024
Judge
Sibiya
The High Court upheld points in limine on urgency and lis alibi pendens, staying the application pending consolidated proceedings about the property and agreements.