South Africa Case Law

Sasria SOC v TUHF Limited (2023/046891)

Sasria SOC v TUHF Limited (2023/046891) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1296 (23 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/046891

Judge

Adams

The court found that the respondent's delay in prosecuting the action was inordinate, unexplained, and inexcusable. The respondent failed to take any substantive steps to advance the litigation for over four years, did not produce expert reports, and did not engage in pre-trial procedures. The explanation provided by the respondent for the delay was vague and insufficient. The delay has caused significant prejudice to the applicant, as the passage of time has rendered it impossible to secure reliable witnesses and evidence, thereby making a fair trial unattainable. The court concluded that th…

Source excerpt

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Delay In Prosecution
• Abuse Of Process
• Prejudice To Defendant

Nedbank Limited v Ncube and Another (41606/2016)

Nedbank Limited v Ncube and Another (41606/2016) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1147 (12 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

41606/2016

Judge

Farber

The High Court dismissed a long-pending urgent interdict application after finding the respondents had failed to prosecute it and the issues were already res judicata.

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Special Executability
• Mortgage Enforcement
• Urgent Interdict
• Res Judicata
• Dismissal-for-want-of-prosecution

Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Human Settlements, Free State Province v Cem Brink CC and Others (4973/2013)

Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Human Settlements, Free State Province v Cem Brink CC and Others (4973/2013) [2023] ZAFSHC 370 (2 October 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4973/2013

Judge

Berry, AJ

The court found that while there was a significant delay in prosecuting the action, the applicant provided detailed explanations for the periods of delay and did not abandon the claim. The matter involves substantial public funds and interest, and the respondent did not substantiate its claims of prejudice with evidence. The court held that the right of access to courts is constitutionally protected and should only be limited in exceptional circumstances where there is clear abuse of process. The delay did not amount to a gross abuse of procedure, and it would not be in the interests of justi…

Source excerpt

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Amendment Of Particulars Of Claim
• Abuse Of Process
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Court

Refitlhile Taxi Association and Others v Vaalharts Taxi Association and Others (2227/2014)

Refitlhile Taxi Association and Others v Vaalharts Taxi Association and Others (2227/2014) [2021] ZANCHC 65 (14 December 2021)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2227/2014

Judge

S C O'Brien

The High Court dismissed an action for want of prosecution after finding an inexcusable delay, serious prejudice to the applicants, and an abuse of process.

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Condonation
• Prejudice Due To Delay
• Dismissal-for-want-of-prosecution
• Civil-procedure
• Prejudice-from-delay

Minister of Safety and Security and Others v Ndaba (481/1999)

Minister of Safety and Security and Others v Ndaba (481/1999) [2016] ZAECMHC 51 (10 November 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

481/1999

Judge

RWN Brooks

The High Court refused to dismiss a damages action for want of prosecution, finding the delays were tied to the plaintiff’s financial hardship and legal representation difficulties.

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Access To Court
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• In Forma Pauperis
• Prejudice Due To Delay
• Dismissal-for-want-of-prosecution

Berrange N.O. and Others v Vorster and Others (37718/2006)

Berrange N.O. and Others v Vorster and Others (37718/2006) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1105 (3 November 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37718/2006

Judge

A.A. Louw

High Court case dismissing an action for want of prosecution after nearly six years of inactivity, finding the delay inexcusable and seriously prejudicial.

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Abuse Of Process
• Delay In Prosecution
• Prejudice To Defendant
• Liquidation Claims
• Dismissal-for-want-of-prosecution

Edcon (Pty) Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others; In re: Thulare and Others v Edcon (Pty) Limited (JR698/2013; J271/2015)

Edcon (Pty) Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others; In re: Thulare and Others v Edcon (Pty) Limited (JR698/2013; J271/2015) [2015] ZALCJHB 392; (2016) 37 ILJ 434 (LC) (13 November 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR698/2013; J271/2015

Judge

Bank

Edcon failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its prolonged default in prosecuting the review application, offering only a thin account of staff departures and no justification for the lengthy delay. Its prospects of success on review were found to be weak, as the Commissioner had properly analysed the evidence and there was no credible challenge to his findings regarding the absence of a clear workplace rule or dishonesty. The Practice Manual's provisions regarding deemed archiving are enforceable and require good cause for revival, which Edcon did not establish. The interests of just…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Practice Manual Enforcement
• Good Cause Standard
• Section 158 Application
• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution

Netcare Pretoria One (Pty) Ltd v Roelofse (50314/2007)

Netcare Pretoria One (Pty) Ltd v Roelofse (50314/2007) [2015] ZAGPPHC 207 (3 March 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50314/2007

Judge

G. Webster

An unopposed application to dismiss a medical negligence action was granted after the plaintiff died, no substitution occurred, and discovery orders were ignored.

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Substitution Of Parties
• Non Compliance With Court Order
• Dismissal-for-want-of-prosecution
• Substitution-of-parties
• Non-compliance-with-court-order

Hasmukh v International Bank of Southern Africa and Others; InRe: International Bank of Southern Africa and Others v Hasmukh (2001/17748)

Hasmukh v International Bank of Southern Africa and Others; InRe: International Bank of Southern Africa and Others v Hasmukh (2001/17748) [2014] ZAGPJHC 325 (28 October 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2001/17748

Judge

Van der Linde, AJ

The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with several material aspects of a prior court order, including providing a list of documents for the trial bundle and adequate supplementary responses to requests for further particulars. The plaintiff's delays in prosecuting the action were inordinate and inexcusable, with no satisfactory explanation provided for significant periods of inactivity and repeated failures to proceed on allocated trial dates. The court held that the primary responsibility for progressing litigation lies with the plaintiff, and the defendants had suffered prejud…

Source excerpt

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Case Management Orders
• Pre Trial Procedure
• Delay In Prosecution
• Irregular Proceedings
• Prejudice To Defendant

Shipping General Transport Services (Pty) Ltd v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry and Others (JR2163/10)

Shipping General Transport Services (Pty) Ltd v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry and Others (JR2163/10) [2013] ZALCJHB 182 (8 August 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2163/10

Judge

Visagie

The Labour Court dismissed an unopposed review application because the applicant failed for nearly two years to prosecute the review or reconstruct the record.

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Unreasonable Delay
• Rule 7a Procedure
• Dismissal-for-want-of-prosecution
• Labour-review-procedure