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
Eskom Holding Limited and Another v Netcare Hospitals (Pty) Ltd ta Netcare 911 (2023/054508) [2025] ZAGPJHC 598 (13 February 2025)
The High Court granted a final indulgence to file heads of argument and condonation, but warned that failure would lead to dismissal and attorney-and-client costs.
Chatz Cellular (Pty) Ltd v Celluar Corporate Suite (Pty) Ltd (53330/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1909 (16 November 2023)
The court found that the application for leave to appeal was moot because the relevant practice directive had changed, and it was no longer a requirement for both parties to serve and file heads of argument before obtaining a hearing date. The respondent had already obtained a hearing date without the applicant's heads of argument, and the respondent would not insist on compelling the applicant to serve heads as it was no longer required. Granting leave to appeal would have no practical effect or result, and the appeal would be an academic exercise. The applicant also failed to demonstrate th…
Source excerpt
Capitec Bank Limited v Mangena and Another (2021/28660) [2023] ZAGPJHC 225 (16 March 2023)
The court refused to dismiss a rescission application just because heads of argument were not filed, holding that motion proceedings require consideration of the merits.
Hassim v Bekker and Others (17/46707) [2018] ZAGPJHC 414 (8 June 2018)
The High Court held that a practice directive sanction for non-compliance did not automatically strike out a claim or defence; a further application is required.
New Venture Mining Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Du Preez NO and Others (273/2015) [2017] ZANWHC 40 (19 May 2017)
The court struck an opposed rescission application from the roll after the applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 14 and sought a postponement without proper cause.
KP Seabi v Sasfin Bank Ltd (A90/2007) [2009] ZAGPPHC 291 (24 February 2009)
The High Court struck an appeal from the roll after the appellant failed to file heads of argument or give notice of set down, and awarded attorney-and-client costs.
Ngema v Road Accident Fund (234/2005) [2008] ZAKZHC 98 (1 January 2008)
The court found that the KwaZulu Natal Practice Directive requires both parties in opposed motion proceedings to file heads of argument. Therefore, fees relating to the perusal of heads of argument must be allowed on a party and party basis. The taxing official's decision to disallow the attorney's perusal fee was based on a misapplication of principle, as the heads were required by the rules and were of fundamental importance to the applicant's case. The review application was accordingly allowed and the ruling of the taxing officer was set aside.
Source excerpt
S v Heslop (216/05) [2006] ZASCA 20; [2006] SCA 22 (RSA) (20 March 2006)
The Supreme Court of Appeal struck the appeal from the roll because the appellant could not be traced and counsel had filed heads without a power of attorney.
Explore more
