Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Bridge Taxi Finance No 05 (Pty) Ltd v Sithele (4948/24 ; 4949/24 ; 4950/24 ; 4946/24) [2025] ZANWHC 93 (5 June 2025)
The High Court removed ex parte applications for preservation of taxi vehicles from the roll, finding the affidavits speculative and unsupported.
Mathlatjie and Others v Mogale City Local Municipality and Others (2025/054979) [2025] ZAGPJHC 435 (6 May 2025)
An urgent spoliation bid arising from an alleged land invasion was dismissed after the court found staged evidence, no lawful occupation, and abuse of process.
P.M obo M.M v Director General of Home Affairs and Others (040799/2024 ; 2024/046416 ; 2024/019004 ; 2024/017782) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1330 (12 December 2024)
The court found that all four applications were poorly drafted, lacked substantive evidence, and failed to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements for birth registration. The applicants did not provide adequate proof of parental status, lawful presence in South Africa, or valid reasons for late registration. Supporting documents were inconsistent, unclear, and in some cases not authenticated. The court noted duplicative filings and copy-paste allegations, indicating an abuse of process by the legal representatives. Given the risks associated with improper birth registration, includi…
Source excerpt
Mbita Consulting Services CC and Others v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Pty) Limited and Others (2023/114027) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1126 (22 October 2024)
The court held that it is not competent to make a disputed and unsigned settlement agreement an order of court in the absence of a pending lis between the parties. The applicants failed to identify any case pending before the court to which the settlement agreement related. The arbitration award in favour of Prasa was final, and no further action was taken by the applicants to vindicate their alleged rights. The court found that the purported agreement was not signed by Prasa, and the authority of the officials was disputed. Reliance on section 20(7) and (8) of the Companies Act was misplaced…
Source excerpt
Marce Fire Fighting Technology (Pty) Ltd and Another v Seale and Others (2024-011161) [2024] ZAGPPHC 235 (8 March 2024)
The court found that the applicants' urgent application was manifestly unsustainable and amounted to an abuse of court process, as the relief sought had already been effected by a prior resolution. The withdrawal of the application occurred only after the court highlighted its unsustainability, indicating reckless and vexatious conduct by the applicants. In line with established legal principles, the court held that the respondents should not bear the wasted costs occasioned by such conduct and awarded punitive costs on the attorney and client scale.
Source excerpt
C.A.D v J.D (4017/2021) [2023] ZAECMKHC 66 (18 May 2023)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 43 request for a contribution to legal costs for poor financial disclosure and granted the respondent’s counter-application for child maintenance pendente lite.
J.M.V v P.C.V (547/2022) [2022] ZAECELLC 14 (12 July 2022)
Rule 43 interim-maintenance application struck from the roll for material non-compliance and prolix papers, with no order as to costs.
WAR obo Zondo and Others v Premier Logistics (Pty) Limited (JS206/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 325 (6 October 2021)
The Labour Court postponed this application sine die after the applicant’s illness was supported by a medical certificate and the respondent agreed.
T G v J G (11653/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 181 (13 June 2019)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 43 maintenance application as an abuse of process, citing prolix papers, overstated claims, and relief already covered by the parties' arrangements.
Killik v Investec Bank Ltd (261/12) [2012] ZAGPJHC 265 (30 August 2012)
The High Court dismissed an application to withdraw a rescission application and also dismissed the rescission itself, finding the matter an abuse of process.
Explore more
