South Africa Case Law

Vodafin Mining (Pty) Ltd v NKK Minerals and Construction CC and Others (4857/2016)

Vodafin Mining (Pty) Ltd v NKK Minerals and Construction CC and Others (4857/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 327 (16 February 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

4857/2016

Judge

E M Kubushi

The court held that the motion, though framed as interim relief, was in substance final interdictory relief. The applicant failed to show a clear right and the application was dismissed with costs.

• Interim Interdict
• Final Interdict
• Clear Right Requirement
• Mining Site Possession
• Final-interdict
• Interim-interdict

Ndamase and Others v Master of the High Court, Mthatha and Others (1279/2015)

Ndamase and Others v Master of the High Court, Mthatha and Others (1279/2015) [2015] ZAECMHC 83 (26 November 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1279/2015

Judge

RWN Brooks

The High Court dismissed an application by the deceased’s sisters to be joined as co-heirs in his intestate estate, holding they had no clear right under the Act.

• Intestate Succession
• Final Interdict
• Clear Right Requirement
• Intestate-succession
• Final-interdict
• High-court

Crots v Hannes Muller Voerkraal and Others (4540/2015)

Crots v Hannes Muller Voerkraal and Others (4540/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 188 (14 October 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4540/2015

Judge

Bokwa, AJ

The High Court set aside an ex parte interim anti-dissipation order, finding the applicant had not shown a clear right or identified an earmarked fund.

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Interim Interdict
• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration
• Clear Right Requirement
• Anti-dissipation-interdict
• Urgent-application

Madzonga v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd (J 1867/2013)

Madzonga v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd (J 1867/2013) [2013] ZALCJHB 232 (30 August 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 1867/2013

Judge

Snyman

The applicant failed to establish a clear right to relief, as his suspension was neither unlawful, invalid, nor unfair. The right to fair suspension is governed exclusively by the LRA, which prescribes referral of unfair suspension disputes to the CCMA or bargaining council for conciliation and arbitration. The Labour Court may only intervene in exceptional or compellingly urgent circumstances, which were not present here. The respondent's disciplinary code was complied with, and the applicant was afforded an opportunity to make representations prior to suspension. The respondent's belief tha…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Suspension
• Urgent Interdict
• Disciplinary Code Compliance
• Alternative Remedy
• Clear Right Requirement

Mathabathe v Emfuleni Local Municipality and Others (J 511/2013)

Mathabathe v Emfuleni Local Municipality and Others (J 511/2013) [2013] ZALCJHB 45 (15 March 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 511/2013

Judge

Moshoana

The applicant failed to establish a clear right to attend the Municipal Finance Management Programme course, either in terms of the Municipal Finance Management Act or any other instrument. Her founding papers did not set out facts placing her within the contemplation of section 83, and she attempted to supplement her case in reply, which is impermissible. The evidence showed that she did not have approval to attend the course and misled officials regarding her permission. The requirements for a final interdict were not met, and the applicant was not candid in her approach to the court. The a…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Urgent Interdict
• Municipal Finance Management Act
• Clear Right Requirement
• Alternative Remedy

M v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (4015A/2007)

M v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (4015A/2007) [2007] ZAGPHC 326 (23 November 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

4015A/2007

Judge

Pretorius

The court dismissed an application for a final interdict against a neighbour, finding no clear right, no continuing injury, and an alternative remedy in damages.

• Final Interdict
• Mental Health Act
• Clear Right Requirement
• Continuing Injury
• Alternative Remedy
• Final-interdict

Middleton Traders CC v Middleton (1131/03)

Middleton Traders CC v Middleton (1131/03) [2003] ZANCHC 51 (12 December 2003)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1131/03

Judge

Majiedt

The applicant failed to establish locus standi and a clear right to the relief sought. The evidence, including supporting documents attached to the respondent's affidavit, overwhelmingly supports the respondent's version that he was employed and suspended by the joint venture, not the applicant. Genuine disputes of fact exist regarding the employment relationship, the suspension, the lease, and the possession of assets. Applying the Plascon Evans rule, the applicant cannot succeed on the papers. The urgent application was unwarranted, as the respondent continued his duties without objection a…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Locus Standi
• Employment Relationship Dispute
• Urgent Application
• Clear Right Requirement