South Africa Case Law

Pohlmann and Another v Pohlmann N.O and Others (873/2020)

Pohlmann and Another v Pohlmann N.O and Others (873/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 53 (2 May 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

873/2020

Judge

Rugunanan

The court found that the applicants failed to establish sufficient urgency to justify the modification of ordinary court rules for urgent applications. The applicants did not demonstrate real loss or damage, nor did they provide adequate evidence of their financial needs or the existence of a prima facie right to enforce the alleged agreement. The court noted that the applicants had access to substantial alternative funds and failed to explain their delay in seeking relief. The deficiencies in the founding and replying affidavits, including the lack of specific references to supporting docume…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Interdict
• Enforcement Of Agreement
• Interim Relief
• Modification Of Court Rules

Chetty v Govender and Another, Govender and Another v Chetty and Another (9190/06, 9380/04)

Chetty v Govender and Another, Govender and Another v Chetty and Another (9190/06, 9380/04) [2008] ZAKZHC 101 (20 June 2008)

Court

High Courts - Kwazulu Natal

Case number

9190/06, 9380/04

Judge

Msimang

The High Court refused an interdict against enforcement of a settlement agreement and upheld enforcement under Rule 41(4), rejecting fraud and valuation challenges.

• Settlement Agreement
• Compromise
• Enforcement Of Agreement
• Valuation Dispute
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Settlement-agreement