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
Smith and Others v Georgio and Others (93417/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 373 (25 April 2025)
The High Court stayed proceedings pending final determination of a rescission application about a scheme of arrangement and ordered costs against the applicants on a withdrawn transfer application.
Roodeberg Residents Association NPC v Drakenstein Municipality and Others (15768/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 271 (19 September 2024)
The High Court ordered costs against a residents association after it withdrew an urgent application on the eve of hearing, finding it was not genuine public interest litigation.
Thungela Operations (Pty) v Ltd Xakwa Coal (Pty) Ltd and Others (24010/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 889 (18 November 2022)
After the application was withdrawn, the court held that each party should pay its own costs because the applicant acted reasonably and an official directive made final relief unnecessary.
ADI Investment Proprietary Ltd v Ndlovu and Another (2346/2019) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 67 (5 January 2021)
The court held that compliance with the PIE Act is a mandatory prerequisite for granting an eviction order. The applicant failed to serve or obtain authorisation for a Section 4(2) notice, which is required to inform the unlawful occupier and the municipality of the proceedings, the grounds for eviction, and their rights. The absence of such notice cannot be cured by the fact that the matter was opposed or that the respondent had legal representation. Substantial compliance is only relevant where some form of notice has been served, which was not the case here. Consequently, the application i…
Source excerpt
Campbell NO and Another v Fourie and Another (860/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 213 (7 November 2019)
High Court costs application after withdrawal of an action was dismissed. The court ordered each party to pay its own costs, finding the withdrawal was justified.
Minister of Police v Dyumani (CA138/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 79 (4 September 2018)
The High Court upheld an appeal by the Minister of Police, finding the arrest and detention lawful and dismissing the plaintiff’s claim with costs.
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Temp-U-Air Services (Pty) Limited (28945/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 80 (26 April 2018)
The High Court held that a winding-up application was withdrawn after defective service of a section 345 notice, and ordered attorney-and-client costs against the applicant.
Sanria 21 (Pty) Ltd v Nordaline (Pty) Ltd and Another (20123/2017; 20124/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 52 (19 March 2018)
The court held that the applicant, having withdrawn its pursuit of liquidation orders, is in the same position as an unsuccessful litigant and must pay the respondents' costs. The disputes regarding the existence and validity of the franchise agreements, and compliance with the Consumer Protection Act, were foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the applicant prior to launching the applications. The respondents' silence in response to section 345 notices did not constitute a tacit acknowledgment of liability, as more is required for such an inference. The applicant's failure to prope…
Source excerpt
Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Pro-Wiz Group (Pty) Limited and Others; In re: Pro-Wiz Group (Pty) Limited v Pro-Wiz Group (Pty) Limited and Others (28890/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 542 (16 August 2017)
The court held that section 131(6) of the Companies Act suspends the powers of liquidators upon the filing of a business rescue application, and there is no statutory authority for liquidators to oppose such an application unless leave is granted by the court. The court followed the interpretation in Richter v Absa Bank Limited, which includes all winding-up processes as 'liquidation proceedings' subject to suspension. As the liquidators lacked authority to oppose, their application for costs was dismissed. The applicant was awarded costs for the argument on costs.
Source excerpt
City of Matlosana (A341/2015), R v [2016] ZAGPPHC 658 (28 July 2016)
The court found that exceptional circumstances existed to justify a deviation from the general rule that a withdrawing plaintiff pays the defendant's costs. The appellant was a rape victim who had repeatedly warned her employer, a public entity, about safety risks, which were ignored. The respondent's initial denial of the rape and subsequent plea blaming the appellant were offensive and insensitive. The respondent's reliance on a legally unsustainable special plea led to the withdrawal of the action, which would not have occurred but for this plea. The court also considered the financial dis…
Source excerpt
Explore more
