South Africa Case Law

Kondile v Canary and Another (29896/2013)

Kondile v Canary and Another (29896/2013) [2018] ZAGPPHC 412 (16 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29896/2013

Judge

Nel

The High Court does not have jurisdiction to rescind a ruling made by the Rental Housing Tribunal, as the Rental Housing Act provides no mechanism for such rescission and expressly limits the High Court's role to review proceedings. The Tribunal's functions are administrative, and its rulings are not judicial acts subject to rescission by the High Court. The applicant's reliance on rescission procedures under the Uniform Rules of Court is misplaced, as those rules apply only to judgments and orders of courts of law, not administrative tribunals. The applicant failed to pursue the correct reme…

Source excerpt

• Rental Housing Act
• Rescission Of Tribunal Ruling
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Review Proceedings
• Deposit Dispute
• Warrant Of Execution

Swan v Kommissaris van die Hof van Klein Eise Bloemfontein en Anders (A170/09)

Swan v Kommissaris van die Hof van Klein Eise Bloemfontein en Anders (A170/09) [2010] ZAFSHC 136 (21 October 2010)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A170/09

Judges

Hancke, R, Cillié, R

The High Court set aside Small Claims Court proceedings for gross irregularity after a commissioner restarted the matter de novo and communicated privately with a party.

• Review Of Small Claims Court
• Irregularity In Proceedings
• Judicial Bias
• Communication With Witness
• Deposit Dispute
• Small-claims-court-review

Visser v De Villiers and Another (1853/09)

Visser v De Villiers and Another (1853/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 608 (18 May 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

1853/09

Judge

Ebersohn

The court found that the applicant was not entitled to have the R1 million deposit paid into his personal account. The applicant provided false information to the respondents, leading them to believe the funds were being paid into the bond account of the second respondent, as required by the sale agreement. The applicant failed to prove any authorisation from the second respondent to receive or use the deposit, nor did he provide any supporting documentation or confirmatory affidavits. The court held that the applicant fraudulently induced the payment and used the funds for his own benefit an…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Deposit Dispute
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Corporate Governance
• Company Director Liability