South Africa Case Law

Afrirent (Pty) Ltd and Another v NNSI Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (018542/2022)

Afrirent (Pty) Ltd and Another v NNSI Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (018542/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1211 (19 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

018542/2022

Judge

Ally

The High Court ordered the review applicant to serve and file its Rule 53(3) notice within 10 days and made the costs of the interlocutory application costs in the cause.

• Rule 53 Review Procedure
• Case Management Directives
• Costs In Interlocutory Applications
• Rule-53-review-procedure
• Rule-30a
• Case-management-directives

Matini v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Eastern Cape Province - Costs (169/2017)

Matini v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Eastern Cape Province - Costs (169/2017) [2023] ZAECBHC 31 (19 August 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

169/2017

Judge

Hartle

The High Court ordered the defendant to pay attorney-and-client costs for a Rule 30A application and party-and-party costs for removing applications from the roll.

• Costs Award
• Punitive Costs
• Case Management Directives
• Rule 30a Application
• Removal Of Application
• State Liability

Value Pools (Pty) Ltd v Community Property Co (Pty) Ltd (496/2020)

Value Pools (Pty) Ltd v Community Property Co (Pty) Ltd (496/2020) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 5 (25 January 2022)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

496/2020

Judge

Greyling-Coetzer

High Court dismissed a rescission application against an ejectment order, holding that notice of intention to oppose did not excuse failure to file an answering affidavit.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Ejectment
• Rule 42 Application
• Case Management Directives
• Default Judgment
• Rescission-of-judgment

Magagula and Another v Minister of Police (LEGODI JP)

Magagula and Another v Minister of Police (LEGODI JP) [2019] ZAMPMBHC 6; 1530/20 (15 October 2019)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1530/2017; 2362/2017

Judge

Legodi JP

The court found that both Mr Labe and Adv Kgare, as well as their instructing and correspondent attorneys, failed to comply with explicit case management directives and the Practice Directive requiring attendance at roll call at 8h45. Their explanations for late arrival were unacceptable, given their personal participation in case management proceedings and the clear instructions recorded. The court emphasized that such conduct constitutes gross disregard for professional responsibility and undermines the efficient disposal of litigation. The punitive costs order, made on an attorney and clie…

Source excerpt

• Punitive Costs Order
• Attorney And Client Scale
• Case Management Directives
• Professional Misconduct