South Africa Case Law

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Raubex Construction (Pty) Ltd (117558/2023)

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Raubex Construction (Pty) Ltd (117558/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 511 (23 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

117558/2023

Judge

Nharmuravate

The court dismissed PRASA’s interlocutory strike-out application for procedural defects, finding the notice vague and the rules relied on were not properly invoked.

• Striking Out Affidavit Matter
• Rule 30 And 30a Irregular Steps
• Rule 23 2 Procedure
• Rule 6 11 And 6 15 Striking Out
• Separation Of Issues
• Costs In Interlocutory Applications

M.O v R.O (15617/2022)

M.O v R.O (15617/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 37 (27 January 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15617/2022

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The court dismissed a contempt application over Rule 43 non-compliance, found a material change in circumstances, and varied interim maintenance obligations.

• Rule 43 Variation
• Civil Contempt
• Interim Maintenance
• Material Change In Circumstances
• Costs In Interlocutory Applications
• Rule-43-variation

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

Special Investigating Unit and Another v LNG Scientific (Pty) Ltd (GP03/2022)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v LNG Scientific (Pty) Ltd (GP03/2022) [2022] ZAST 15 (29 June 2022)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP03/2022

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Tribunal held that Uniform Rule 53 does not apply to self-review applications brought by organs of State such as the SIU and the MEC: Gauteng Department of Health. The review application was properly brought under Tribunal Rule 10, and the respondents are not obliged to deliver a record of the impugned decision in terms of Uniform Rule 53(1)(b). LNG Scientific (Pty) Ltd is not prejudiced by the procedure adopted, as the respondents have tendered discovery of relevant documents under Tribunal Rule 17(4) read with Uniform Rule 35(13), (1), and (2). The Tribunal specified that discovery shou…

Source excerpt

• Self Review
• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Uniform Rule 53
• Special Tribunals Act
• Access To Record
• Costs In Interlocutory Applications

Lewis Group Limited v Woollam and Others (17199/2016)

Lewis Group Limited v Woollam and Others (17199/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 162; [2017] 1 All SA 231 (WCC) (15 November 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17199/2016

Judge

A.G. Binns-Ward

The High Court refused discovery in interlocutory motion proceedings under Companies Act s 165(3), holding the requested branch reports were not material to deciding whether the demand was without merit.

• Discovery In Motion Proceedings
• Companies Act Section 165
• Delinquent Director Declaration
• Rule 35 Uniform Rules
• Prima Facie Case
• Costs In Interlocutory Applications