South Africa Case Law

SA Taxi Development Finance (Pty) Ltd v Muleba (2024/141745; 2024/137423; 2024/139338; 2024/139331; 2024/139330; 2024/141807; 2024/141815; 2024/141799)

SA Taxi Development Finance (Pty) Ltd v Muleba (2024/141745; 2024/137423; 2024/139338; 2024/139331; 2024/139330; 2024/141807; 2024/141815; 2024/141799) [2025] ZAGPJHC 433 (2 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/141745; 2024/137423; 2024/139338; 2024/139331; 2024/139330; 2024/141807; 2024/141815; 2024/141799

Judge

Mnyatheli

The court found that, although the applications were brought ex parte and without prior notice to the respondents, the applicants had established a prima facie right to interim relief based on uncontested evidence of default and the risk of vehicle stripping in the taxi industry. The urgency and nature of the business justified immediate attachment to preserve the value of the vehicles, and the rule nisi procedure provided respondents with an opportunity to challenge the order on the return day or anticipate it on 24 hours' notice. The court distinguished prior authority cited by applicants,…

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Interdict
• Rule Nisi
• Credit Agreements
• National Credit Act
• Preservation Of Security
• Audi Alteram Partem

Bright Light Solar PTA1 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Village Mall Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/140583)

Bright Light Solar PTA1 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Village Mall Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/140583) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1295 (19 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/140583

Judge

PG Louw

High Court reconsideration set aside an ex parte interdict because the applicants failed to disclose material facts, including prior debt and liquidity concerns.

• Ex Parte Interdict
• Abuse Of Process
• Material Non Disclosure
• Urgent Application
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Reciprocal Obligations

Le Grellier and Another v Kamionsky and Another (2023-058876)

Le Grellier and Another v Kamionsky and Another (2023-058876) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1286 (13 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-058876

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court set aside an ex parte interim interdict restraining alleged defamation, holding that the applicants had not excluded possible defences or shown irreparable harm.

• Defamation
• Freedom Of Expression
• Prior Restraint
• Ex Parte Interdict
• Fair Comment
• Public Interest Defence

Roelofse N.O. v L and Another (2016/13170)

Roelofse N.O. v L and Another (2016/13170) [2021] ZAGPJHC 740 (26 November 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2016/13170

Judge

F Karachi

The High Court confirmed an interim interdict over pension funds, held the receiver was not functus officio, found no valid compromise, and awarded attorney-client costs.

• Division Of Joint Estate
• Pension Interest On Divorce
• Ex Parte Interdict
• Functus Officio
• Costs Punitive Scale
• Division-of-joint-estate

Process Design & Automation (Pty) Ltd and Others v Gamede (41905/2020)

Process Design & Automation (Pty) Ltd and Others v Gamede (41905/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 157 (24 May 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

41905/2020

Judge

VM Movshovich

The court found that Mr Gamede's ex parte application was materially deficient due to substantial non-disclosure of relevant facts, including the existence and outcome of the prior Pretoria application and the applicants' defences. The respondent's failure to make proper enquiries and to set out these matters on oath constituted an abuse of process. The court held that the interim interdict prejudiced at least one applicant and that the respondent's conduct in both procuring the ex parte order and opposing the reconsideration application was vexatious. Accordingly, the ex parte order was reco…

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Interdict
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Res Judicata
• Shareholder Rights
• Punitive Costs

Averda South Africa (Pty) Limited v Unlawful and Unauthorised Individuals and Pickers Traversing Property Situated at the Remaining Extent of Farm Robinson 82, Registration Division IR, Province of Gauteng and Situated on the Corner of Fennell and Rosettenville Road, Village Main (19700/18)

Averda South Africa (Pty) Limited v Unlawful and Unauthorised Individuals and Pickers Traversing Property Situated at the Remaining Extent of Farm Robinson 82, Registration Division IR, Province of Gauteng and Situated on the Corner of Fennell and Rosettenville Road, Village Main (19700/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 221 (17 May 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19700/18

Judge

M B Mahalelo

The court found that the applicant failed to disclose material facts in its ex parte urgent application, specifically the longstanding peaceful presence of the 32 respondents on the property and their distinction from the violent newcomers. The applicant's omission of these facts constituted a material breach of the duty of utmost good faith required in ex parte proceedings. The court held that such non-disclosure deprived it of the opportunity to properly consider the merits and the impact of the order on the respondents. Consequently, the rule nisi could not be confirmed, and the applicatio…

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Interdict
• Duty Of Utmost Good Faith
• Urgent Application Procedure
• Land Access Rights
• Waste Management Authorisation

Van Zyl v Siyaya Engine Rebuilders CC and Another (A267/2016)

Van Zyl v Siyaya Engine Rebuilders CC and Another (A267/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 137 (19 October 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A267/2016

Judges

Rogers, Magona

The court held that the discharge of the ex parte order was justified both on the basis of non-disclosure of material facts and because the circumstances did not warrant proceeding ex parte. The appellant failed to disclose the full history of possession and the steps taken to recover the vehicles, which might have influenced the court's decision at the ex parte stage. The respondents acted openly, invited inspection, and followed proper procedures, negating any claim of urgency or bad faith. The appellant had sufficient time to bring an urgent application on notice, and the ex parte procedur…

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Interdict
• Non Disclosure
• Ownership Dispute
• Estoppel
• Urgent Application

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa v Sooliman (2013/21466)

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa v Sooliman (2013/21466) [2013] ZAGPJHC 179; 2013 (5) SA 603 (GSJ) (18 July 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/21466

Judge

R Sutherland

The court held that where a respondent invokes Rule 6(12)(c) and files an answering affidavit, the applicant is entitled to file a reply, provided it does not introduce new matter illegitimately. The purpose of reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c) is to ensure full ventilation of the dispute as if the initial hearing had complied with the audi alterem partem principle. The court found that IDC had locus standi to complain of alleged fraud regarding HMP’s assets due to its security interests and ongoing debtor relationship. The respondents’ challenges to the evidence and allegations of non-disc…

Source excerpt

• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration
• Ex Parte Interdict
• Locus Standi
• Fraud And Misappropriation
• Balance Of Convenience