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
Engelbrecht v Attooh Consulting Services Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (31915/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 732 (23 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an unopposed costs application, holding that Rule 28(9) already regulates costs for a notice of intention to amend.
S.A.S v J.M.S (2022/32681) [2025] ZAGPPHC 3 (6 January 2025)
The court found that the respondent, having withdrawn the appeal, is to be treated as an unsuccessful litigant and is liable for the costs of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal. There was no evidence of a compromise between the parties that each would pay their own costs. The correspondence and notices unequivocally reserved the costs to be argued in the main application, and no agreement to the contrary was reached. The argument that the costs issue was res judicata was rejected, as it conflated the main application with the subsequent appeal process. The court exercised its…
Source excerpt
Vantage Goldfields SA (Pty) Ltd and Others v Arqomanzi (Pty) Ltd (1302/2021; 1272/2021) [2022] ZASCA 185; 2023 (4) SA 568 (SCA) (22 December 2022)
The SCA held that adopted business rescue plans cannot be unilaterally amended by practitioners. It set aside declaratory relief not sought, but upheld the interdict and costs order.
Merryweather and Another v Scholtz and Another (7965/2009) [2021] ZAWCHC 125 (22 June 2021)
The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Third Defendant, Oliver Scholtz, wrongfully and intentionally spear tackled the First Plaintiff, Andrew Merryweather, causing the catastrophic spinal injury. The self-defence version advanced by Oliver was rejected as improbable, unsupported by the evidence, and failing to meet the requirements for lawful self-defence. The expert evidence, particularly from the biomedical experts, supported the Plaintiff's version that a spear tackle was the more probable cause of injury. The Fourth Defendant, Oliver's father, was not found liable for c…
Source excerpt
Gaboinewe Investments (Pty) Ltd v D-fence Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd (539/2020) [2021] ZAECELLC 10 (12 March 2021)
The court dismissed an urgent application to anticipate a provisional winding-up return date, finding the urgency self-created and the application misconceived.
Safta Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others v Vukani Aviation (Pty) Ltd and Others (34072/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 667 (17 June 2020)
The High Court dismissed a liquidation-related application after finding the applicants lacked authority to institute proceedings and ordered personal costs against them.
Kramer v Westraad and Others; In re: Kramer v Ursispace (Pty) Ltd (5602/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 220 (19 October 2017)
The court joined the First Respondent to a liquidation matter for costs purposes, discharged the provisional liquidation order, and apportioned costs between the Applicant and First Respondent.
Capensis Investments 352 (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg and Others (31887/12) [2014] ZAGPJHC 15 (21 February 2014)
High Court dispute over immovable property sales: the court found the first sale lapsed and was repudiated, upheld the later sale, and made deed and costs orders.
Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd v Regional Director:Free State Department of Water Affairs and Others (971/12) [2013] ZASCA 206; [2014] 1 All SA 553 (SCA); 2014 (3) SA 149 (SCA) (4 December 2013)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Minister's powers under section 19(3) of the National Water Act are not limited to the period during which the recipient is a landholder. The directive remains valid and enforceable even after the recipient ceases to own, control, occupy, or use the land. The court found no basis in the wording of section 19(3) or in the broader statutory context to support Harmony's restrictive interpretation. The directive's interim nature and reference to future agreement provided sufficient limitation, and the absence of a specific completion date did not render i…
Source excerpt
Antonie v Noble Land (Pty) Ltd (2011/33953) [2012] ZAGPJHC 292; 2014 (5) SA 307 (GJ) (21 September 2012)
The court held that substitution of the applicant after cession of a res litigiosa is governed by common-law principles, not Rule 15, as there is no change in status. The applicant cannot be automatically liable for costs incurred prior to substitution, as there is no privity of contract with the respondent regarding those costs. The respondent's potential prejudice regarding pre-substitution costs cannot be remedied by the mere granting of substitution. Furthermore, the existing security for costs order remains in force and cannot be disregarded or rendered nugatory by substitution. The cour…
Source excerpt
Explore more
