South Africa Case Law

South African Police Service Medical Scheme (Polmed) v Registrar of the Council for Medical Schemes and Others (24261/2020)

South African Police Service Medical Scheme (Polmed) v Registrar of the Council for Medical Schemes and Others (24261/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 969 (2 December 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24261/2020

Judge

E M Kubushi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. There was no actual dispute between the parties, as the curatorship application had been withdrawn and both parties agreed on the necessity of factual justification for ex parte applications. The court held that section 5(1) of the Financial Institutions (Protection of Funds) Act is valid and that there was no evidence of any future or contingent right requiring declaratory relief. The matter was deemed hypothetical, abstract, and academic, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed…

Source excerpt

• Declaratory Relief
• Leave To Appeal
• Financial Institutions Protection Of Funds Act
• Contingent Rights
• Ex Parte Applications

J.L.T v C.H.T and Another (EL 819/2020)

J.L.T v C.H.T and Another (EL 819/2020) [2021] ZAECELLC 4 (22 January 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL 819/2020

Judge

Hartle

The High Court dismissed an urgent application for an anti-dissipation interdict over sale proceeds from a matrimonial home, finding no proof of asset dissipation.

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Matrimonial Property Accrual
• Interim Interdict
• Contingent Rights
• Costs Award
• Anti-dissipation-interdict

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others v Atlantic Fishing Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Others (259/03)

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others v Atlantic Fishing Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Others (259/03) [2003] ZASCA 143; [2004] 1 All SA 591 (SCA); 2004 (3) SA 176 (SCA) (28 November 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

259/03

Judges

Howie, Streicher, Conradie, Lewis, Mlambo

The SCA held that successful fishing-right applicants had an interest under section 80(3) and were entitled to be heard before another appeal was granted.

• Marine Living Resources Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Right To Be Heard
• Allocation Of Fishing Rights
• Contingent Rights
• Administrative-law