National Director of Public Prosecutions v Livia Transport (Pty) Ltd (540/2024; 5817/2023) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 29 (22 April 2025)
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Case number
540/2024; 5817/2023
Judge
TV Ratshibvumo
The court found that the requirements for a preservation of property order under section 38 of POCA were met, as there were reasonable grounds to believe the truck and trailers were used in the commission of Schedule 1 offences, including theft, fraud, forgery, and contraventions of the Second-Hand Goods Act and Criminal Matters Amendment Act. The innocence or otherwise of Livia Transport was irrelevant to the preservation application. The NDPP did not fail to disclose material information in its ex parte application, as it was not aware of the pending rei vindicatio application and was not a…
Lesese v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (Reasons) (JR791/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 275 (25 February 2025)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR791/23
Judge
M T M Phehane
The applicant failed to establish that the respondents were in contempt of court, as the evidence showed that the respondents had complied with the court order by providing the required documentation, including typed notes and audio recordings. The applicant did not demonstrate any wilful or contumacious disregard for judicial authority by the respondents. Furthermore, the applicant failed to disclose material facts to the court, including the existence of a variation ruling and the provision of the relevant recordings. The repeated filing of applications to compel records already provided co…
Society for the Protection of Our Constitution v Minister of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others (B3991/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1231 (25 November 2024)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
B3991/2024
Judge
Neukircher
The application was premised on facts that were not substantiated. The applicant failed to disclose crucial information, relied on hearsay and media reports, and did not provide direct or expert evidence regarding the situation at Stilfontein mine. The respondents demonstrated that alternative safe exits were available, rescue operations were underway, and essential supplies were not cut off. The constitutional issues raised by the applicant were not engaged on the facts as presented. The court found that the applicant did not make out a proper case for urgent relief, and the application must…
L.W v K.C.A (A2023-013223) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1154; [2023] 4 All SA 769 (GJ); 2024 (1) SACR 626 (GJ) (13 October 2023)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
A2023-013223
Judges
AC Dodson, J Moorcroft
The court found that the respondent, in seeking an interim protection order ex parte, breached his duty of full disclosure by failing to present material facts and relevant communications, including admissions and apologies regarding the alleged sexual assaults. This dishonesty and non-disclosure warranted discharge of the interim protection order and refusal of final relief. On the merits, the appellant's communications to third parties regarding rape allegations, made in good faith and motivated by genuine belief, did not constitute harassment as defined in the Protection from Harassment Ac…
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited v Bokone Group of Companies (Pty) Ltd (2022-027186) [2023] ZAGPJHC 837 (24 July 2023)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2022-027186
Judge
C A C Korf
The court found that the applicant failed to make full and correct disclosure of material facts in its ex parte urgent application, including the true status of the project, communications regarding loan repayment extensions, and the nature of the respondent's financial position. While these nondisclosures were not material to the applicant's entitlement to perfect its security by attachment in situ (inventorying and marking assets), they were material and relevant to the urgency and justification for orders authorising removal and sale of the respondent's movable assets. The court exercised…
Phethla v Phethla and Others (HCA10/2022) [2023] ZALMPPHC 8 (16 February 2023)
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Case number
HCA10/2022
Judges
Muller, K L Pillay
The High Court dismissed an appeal against the discharge of an urgent ex parte interdict concerning a communal property association meeting and administration.
TFM Customising Centre (PTY) Ltd v Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a First National Band and Another (048154/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1013 (15 December 2022)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
048154/2022
Judge
Twala M L
The applicant failed to disclose material facts to the court when seeking the ex parte order, specifically that the respondent had taken control of the business and its accounts pursuant to a sale agreement. The applicant misled the court by omitting these facts and by misstating the circumstances surrounding the transfer of funds. The court found this non-disclosure to be mala fide and fatal to the application. As a result, the ex parte order was reconsidered and set aside, and the respondent was entitled to control and dispense the funds in question.
Farraque v Mhlongo In re: Mholongo v Farraque and Others (43344/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 850 (17 November 2021)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
43344/21
Judge
Tlhapi
The High Court discharged two rule nisi orders and dismissed an urgent ex parte application after finding material non-disclosure and inconsistent affidavits.
