Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Sibeko v Mogashoa and Another (064969/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 752 (14 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a contempt order and awarded costs on the attorney-and-client scale.
Profert (Pty) Ltd v Vermaak (A09/23) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 18 (13 March 2023)
The High Court held that refusal of default judgment is not a final order and is not appealable. The appeal was dismissed.
Goodyear South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Others (198/CAC/Jan22) [2022] ZACAC 7; [2022] 2 CPLR 24 (CAC) (19 July 2022)
The Competition Appeal Court held that the directive excluding Goodyear's expert witness statement was final in effect, as the written directive did not indicate it would be reconsidered later. Applying the principles from Zweni, Metlika, and SCAW, the Court found that the directive was definitive of Goodyear's rights and had a final effect on its ability to present its case. Consequently, the directive was appealable under section 37(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act. The Court further held that a single Tribunal member was not competent to make a final order of this nature under section 31(5)…
Source excerpt
Pegma Thirteeen Investments (Pty) Ltd v Free State Development Corporation (2681/2006) [2008] ZAFSHC 154 (19 December 2008)
The court held that leave to appeal was premature because a condonation application was still pending, so the special-plea order was not yet appealable.
Van Niekerk and Another v Van Niekerk and Another (460/06) [2007] ZASCA 116; [2008] 1 All SA 96 (SCA); 2008 (1) SA 76 (SCA); 2007 BIP 414 (SCA) (21 September 2007)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the order refusing to set aside the Anton Piller order is not appealable. The court applied the test for appealability as set out in Zweni v Minister of Law and Order, finding that the order was not final in effect, did not definitively determine the rights of the parties, and did not dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings. The Anton Piller order was found to be procedural, aimed at preserving evidence, and not affecting substantive rights. The court distinguished the present case from those where interim orders wer…
Source excerpt
Explore more
