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
Maluleke v Honourable Mr Justice N Ranchod and Others (HCAA 24/2023 ; 215/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 52 (20 March 2025)
Appeal dismissed in a contempt matter against judges, with the court finding no contempt and holding that the application was not properly served or authorised.
Lutchman N.O. and Others v African Global Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others; African Global Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Lutchman N.O. and Others (1088/2020;1135/2020) [2022] ZASCA 66; [2022] 3 All SA 35 (SCA) ; 2022 (4) SA 529 (SCA) (10 May 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the business rescue application was not 'made' within the meaning of s 131(6) of the Companies Act, as it was not properly served on all joint liquidators, the Commission, or all affected persons. Therefore, the application did not suspend the liquidation proceedings or the auction of assets. The Court further found that the Bhoola AJ order's requirement for directors' consent to asset sales was intended to lapse upon the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment in the earlier appeal, and thus the liquidators were empowered to proceed with the auction. The high…
Source excerpt
ABSA Trust Ltd N.O ET Kabinde Trust v Road Accident Fund (58660/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 258 (29 April 2022)
The High Court held that section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act does not cover annual trust administration fees, and dismissed the application.
Matsaung v Mathedimosa and Others (1101/2019) [2021] ZALMPPHC 58 (30 August 2021)
The High Court dismissed a review of a Taxing Master’s rulings on wasted-costs taxation, holding that the disputed fees were properly disallowed.
South African Arms and Ammunition Dealers Association v Minister of Police and Others (41415/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 452; [2021] 4 All SA 538 (GP) (9 July 2021)
The court found that the relevant court order required the Respondents to consult with the Applicant and other stakeholders during the process of design and implementation of the electronic connectivity system, not prior to the issuance of the tender bid for appointment of a service provider. The language of the order and the context indicated a two-stage process: first, the bidding process to appoint a contractor, and second, the design and implementation phase during which consultation must occur. The Applicant's argument that consultation was required before the tender bid was not supporte…
Source excerpt
BCD (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (0034/2019) [2020] ZATC 17 (3 June 2020)
The court found that the order of 13 September 2019 established a procedural mechanism for resolving the VAT dispute for the 07/2016 period. The obligations placed on the parties were clear: the applicant was to provide specified documents, and SARS was to resolve the dispute within a set timeframe. The issuance of audit findings by SARS constituted a step in resolving the dispute as envisaged by the court order, providing the applicant with the reasons for the proposed adjustment. The applicant's re-enrolment of the application for default judgment was premature, as the process outlined in t…
Source excerpt
Road Accident Fund v Taxing Master and Another (10977/2013) [2019] ZAGPPHC 305 (15 July 2019)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 48 review of taxation, holding that the Taxing Master correctly allowed bundle-delivery costs because they were covered by the court order.
S.O.S Support Public Broadcasting Coalition and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Limited and Others (CCT121/17) [2018] ZACC 37; 2018 (12) BCLR 1553 (CC); 2019 (1) SA 370 (CC); [2018] 2 CPLR 411 (CC) (28 September 2018)
The Constitutional Court held that the Competition Commission's statutory investigative powers under Part B of Chapter 5 of the Competition Act remain intact and were not curtailed by the June 2016 order of the Competition Appeal Court. The Commission is authorised to exercise both coercive and non-coercive powers, including interviewing witnesses and compelling production of documents, in investigating whether the SABC-MultiChoice agreement constitutes a notifiable merger. The June 2016 order did not expressly or impliedly restrict the Commission to a desktop review of documents. The Competi…
Source excerpt
S.O.S Support Public Broadcasting Coalition and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation (Soc) Limited and Others (140/CAC/Mar16) [2017] ZACAC 2; [2017] 1 CPLR 65 (CAC) (28 April 2017)
The court dismissed an application to expand a prior order. It held the Competition Commission’s remit was limited to documents and did not include s 49A investigative powers.
Van Driel en Ander v Pocock en Ander (13258/08) [2011] ZAWCHC 33 (1 March 2011)
The court held that the receiver was not functus officio and could still complete the partnership liquidation, but set aside certain asset valuations for lack of consultation.
Explore more
