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
Metro Body Corporate v Diem and Others (7927/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 372 (18 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed a body corporate application to set aside a sectional title transfer, found the litigation unauthorised, and ordered costs against the non-party initiator.
Tegeta Exploration and Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Knoop and Others (035371/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 144 (20 February 2024)
The High Court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal and varied an earlier costs order to clarify that it related to specific relief granted.
Olympic Flame (Pty) Ltd v Connectpro (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Welkom (5790/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 17 (24 January 2024)
The court found that Olympic Flame (Pty) Ltd did not have authority to institute the rescission application or to oppose the rule 30/30A applications at the relevant times, as no proper company resolution or authorisation existed when litigation commenced. Attempts to ratify authority retrospectively were procedurally and constitutionally unacceptable. The late filing of the rescission application and replying affidavit was not satisfactorily explained, and condonation could not be granted. The confirmatory affidavit was filed without leave of court and constituted an irregular step. Olympic…
Source excerpt
Douse v National Horseracing Authority (PR 246/21) [2023] ZALCPE 14 (7 June 2023)
The Labour Court held that the National Horseracing Authority’s CEO lacked authority to institute review proceedings because the constitution vested litigation power in the National Board.
Motsewarona Construction and Maintenance (Pty) Ltd v Matjhabeng Local Municipality (1752/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 163 (20 April 2023)
The court removed a claim and related postponement application from the roll because a pending application to file a further affidavit could affect disputed authority.
Wellen v Bucklands Communal Property Association and Others (2435/2021) [2023] ZANCHC 39 (24 March 2023)
The court found that the CPA's attorneys lacked proper authority to oppose the application, as the executive committee's term had expired and no new committee was lawfully elected. The application thus stood as unopposed. However, the CPA was not a party to the Labour Court proceedings nor a signatory to the High Court settlement agreement. The court held that it cannot enforce orders against a party who was not bound by or party to the original proceedings or agreement. The applicant failed to demonstrate any legal basis for holding the CPA liable for the Trust's obligations. The settlement…
Source excerpt
Shema v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Others (J479/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 128 (24 March 2023)
The court found that the applicant's urgent application was premature, as he failed to first raise his objections regarding the lawfulness of the disciplinary proceedings and the authority of the chairperson with the presiding officer of the second enquiry. The applicant had successfully obtained a favourable ruling in the first enquiry by raising his objections internally, demonstrating that such an approach was not futile. The court held that the proper procedure was to address these issues with the chairperson and, if necessary, seek recusal or stay of proceedings before approaching the La…
Source excerpt
Lewis N.O v VDS and Others (14546/21) [2022] ZAGPJHC 889 (28 October 2022)
The High Court dismissed a liquidator’s application to sequestrate a family trust, finding insolvency and creditor advantage were not proved.
Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Road Traffic Management Corporation and Others (J890/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 36 (19 February 2019)
The Labour Court enforced a Labour Appeal Court order under section 18 of the Superior Courts Act, pending appeal, after finding exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm.
Bafokeng Land Buyers Association and Others v Royal Bafokeng Nation and Others (CIV APP 3/17) [2018] ZANWHC 5; [2018] 3 All SA 92 (NWM); 2018 (5) SA 566 (NWM) (9 March 2018)
The Supreme Council of the Royal Bafokeng Nation did not have the authority under Bafokeng customary law to institute litigation of such public importance without broad consultation with the community. The duty to consult is a legally enforceable obligation under Bafokeng custom, especially for decisions affecting land ownership and the rights of community members. The failure to consult before instituting the main application violated both customary law and constitutional principles of participatory democracy, transparency, and accountability. The appeal was upheld on this ground. Regarding…
Source excerpt
Explore more
