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
Thamodran Gouden t/a Trev's Auto v Crawdord Properties CC (AR421/2023) [2024] ZAKZPHC 105 (20 September 2024)
The court refused condonation and an adjournment, held the appeal had lapsed, and ordered punitive costs after finding inadequate delay explanations.
Timac Agro South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Nel (3379/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 222 (19 July 2024)
The High Court granted leave to appeal after finding arguable prospects that the trial should have been adjourned to allow National Credit Act compliance.
Thuthukani Land Claim Committee Claimants (LCC01/2011) [2024] ZALCC 8 (28 February 2024)
The Land Claims Court refused to order claimants’ attorneys to pay wasted costs after adjournments, finding no gross negligence, dishonesty, or exceptional circumstances.
Gani v Singh (AR348/16) [2017] ZAKZPHC 39 (3 March 2017)
Appeal against a magistrate’s costs order after an adjournment. The High Court held counsel’s fees should have been included on the attorney-and-client scale.
Madida obo S.S.M v MEC for Health for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (14275/2014) [2016] ZAKZPHC 27 (14 March 2016)
The court held the provincial health department liable for negligent labour management causing severe birth injury, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
Mngeni v S (CA&R2/13) [2015] ZAECBHC 24 (15 May 2015)
The High Court upheld a rape appeal, finding material misdirection in refusing an adjournment for key witnesses and in weighing major inconsistencies in the evidence.
Modikwa Platinum Mine (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (LC) [2012] ZALCJHB 5; [2012] 6 BLLR 578 (LC); (2012) 33 ILJ 1733 (LC) (19 January 2012)
The commissioner committed a gross irregularity by refusing to accept the applicant's valid objection to the con-arb process, as section 191(5A)(c) of the LRA makes it clear that arbitration may only proceed immediately if no party objects. The commissioner further misdirected himself by refusing a short adjournment to allow the applicant to bring witnesses, a decision that was unreasonable and not justified by any prejudice to the other party. The refusal to adjourn did not meet the proper test for adjournment, as no irreparable harm would have resulted. Accordingly, the arbitration award wa…
Source excerpt
Explore more
