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
Myeza v Director of Public Prosecution and Another (2025/064708) [2025] ZAGPJHC 497 (21 May 2025)
High Court refused to intervene in pending bail proceedings, finding no exceptional circumstances and no basis to overturn the magistrate’s postponement.
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another v Mandlakomoya Trade and Projects CC and Another (3788/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 322 (18 October 2024)
The court found that the second respondent had expressly waived the benefit of excussion in the suretyship agreements, making her immediately liable as co-principal debtor and guarantor. The liquidation of the principal debtor does not affect the applicants' independent rights to proceed against the surety and guarantor. The circumstances did not fall within any recognised category for granting a stay, such as lis alibi pendens or abuse of process. The fact that the second respondent lost her source of income due to the liquidation was not a sufficient reason to delay the applicants' pursuit…
Source excerpt
Pather v S (1490/24P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 30 (28 March 2024)
The High Court refused a postponement and dismissed an application to extend bail beyond earlier consent orders, holding that the relief would create conflicting orders.
S v Diswane (B349/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 587 (25 January 2024)
The High Court held that the recusal of the magistrate rendered him absolutely unavailable, resulting in the part-heard proceedings being a nullity and set aside ex lege. There is no need for the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside such proceedings, nor to order that they commence de novo. The authority to recommence proceedings rests solely with the National Prosecuting Authority, which may decide whether to re-indict the accused. The judgment emphasized that referring such matters for special review is unnecessary and burdensome, particularly where the accused's co…
Source excerpt
S v Moreki (R12/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 184 (5 May 2023)
The High Court held that, although the Criminal Procedure Act does not expressly empower it to set aside proceedings in circumstances where the presiding officer becomes incapacitated after evidence has been led, the interests of justice require the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Since the original magistrate is unable to continue and evidence has already been adduced, the proceedings must be set aside and the trial must commence de novo before another magistrate, should the Prosecuting Authority so determine.
Source excerpt
S v Zonke and Others (CC 30/15) [2023] ZANWHC 31 (10 March 2023)
The High Court removed a long-running criminal matter from the roll pending finalisation of a related review application, citing delay, prejudice, and lack of trial readiness.
PNM Short Hauliers (Pty) Ltd v Izusa Carriers CC and Another (269/2019) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 52 (11 July 2022)
The court held that consolidation under Rule 11 is limited to actions already before the High Court and does not extend to matters in the Magistrate's Court. The High Court's inherent power under Section 173 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to override the substantive right of a party to choose its forum, nor can it be used to regulate the process of another court. The applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of a legislative lacuna, as adequate procedures such as lis pendens were available. The respondent's right to select the forum is paramount and cannot be usurped without consen…
Source excerpt
Ledla Structure Development (Pty) Ltd and Others v Special Investigating Unit and Another (GP 07/2020) [2022] ZAST 5 (23 February 2022)
Special Tribunal dismissed an urgent application to release forfeited funds for legal costs pending leave to appeal, finding the applicants had not met Rule 23(10)(b).
M.K v D.K (1246/2021) [2021] ZAECPEHC 36 (29 June 2021)
The High Court does not have jurisdiction under Rule 43 to grant interim relief in divorce proceedings where the main action is pending in the Regional Court; such relief must be sought under Rule 58 in the magistrate's court. The applicant's reliance on the High Court's inherent jurisdiction was unfounded, as there was no evidence of immediate threat to the welfare of the minor children and a parenting plan was already in operation. The magistrate who dismissed the Rule 58 application is not functus officio, and the applicant is not without remedy, as simple interlocutory orders may be revis…
Source excerpt
Zoolakha v G L Events Oasys Consortium and Another (19126/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 433 (18 June 2021)
The High Court allowed an elderly, ill plaintiff to record evidence on commission under Rule 38, while preserving the respondents’ procedural rights.
Explore more
