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
Cowin N.O. and Another v Arnold (4523/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 368 (12 April 2024)
The High Court struck out the respondent’s late answering affidavit for non-compliance, proceeded unopposed, and awarded punitive costs in a liquidation-related document application.
Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Chairperson of the Powers and Privileges Committee N.O and Others (23230/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 16 (30 January 2024)
The High Court struck the application from the roll after late filing and non-compliance with a court order, despite granting condonation for the replying affidavit.
Airports Company South Africa v Big Five Duty Free (Pty) Limited and Others (CCT257/17) [2018] ZACC 33; 2019 (2) BCLR 165 (CC); 2019 (5) SA 1 (CC) (27 September 2018)
The Constitutional Court held that a judgment in rem, such as the Phatudi J order declaring the tender award invalid under section 217 of the Constitution, cannot be set aside merely by private settlement agreement between litigating parties. The Full Court's order incorporating the settlement agreement did not, on its proper interpretation, set aside the Phatudi J order. The settlement agreement did not explicitly or effectively overturn the judgment in rem, and the absence of a reasoned judgment from the Full Court further undermined any claim that the merits were considered. The Supreme Co…
Source excerpt
Adendorffs Boerderye v Shabalala and Others (997/15) [2017] ZASCA 37 (29 March 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court erred by granting orders not sought or pleaded by the parties, including obligations for the appellant to provide alternative grazing and for the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform to secure grazing for the respondents. The court found that both landowner and land user share responsibility under CARA to prevent overgrazing, but CARA does not preclude civil proceedings by the landowner to enforce rights or remedies. The respondents' grazing rights derived from agreement, not from ESTA or labour tenancy, and the Minister was…
Source excerpt
Explore more
