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
Sasria SOC Limited v TUHF Limited (Application for Leave to Appeal) (2023/046891) [2025] ZAGPJHC 163 (26 February 2025)
The High Court granted leave to appeal in a delay-dismissal matter, finding reasonable prospects of success and compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.
Martin Boikanyo Pitsie NO and Another v Paul Sepopi Ditshego (031023/2014) [2023] ZAGPJHC 661 (7 June 2023)
The High Court refused to dismiss a long-dormant property dispute, finding inordinate delay but no sufficiently serious prejudice to justify dismissal.
Naude v Breda N.O and Others (46807/11) [2022] ZAGPPHC 855 (7 November 2022)
The High Court dismissed a delayed action for want of prosecution, finding an inordinate and inexcusable 11-year delay and serious prejudice to the applicant.
Kleynhans and Others v Overstrand Municipality (A231/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 21 (13 March 2017)
The court held that the delay in prosecuting the main application, which lasted between nine and twelve months, was not inordinate or unreasonable in the context of an opposed motion where most evidence had already been filed. The appellants had communicated their intention to proceed, and the respondent was not misled into believing the case had lapsed. The explanation for the delay, although unsatisfactory, did not amount to an abuse of process, and the respondent failed to demonstrate serious prejudice resulting from the delay. The court found that the Municipality could have pursued less…
Source excerpt
Phiri v Phiri and Another (39223/2011) [2016] ZAGPPHC 8 (15 January 2016)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a divorce order, finding no error in the original order and an unexplained, inordinate delay in bringing the application.
Foley v Transvaal Abrasives CC (J2003/02) [2015] ZALCJHB 259 (14 August 2015)
The Labour Court granted leave to file a further affidavit in a long-running effort to make a CCMA award an order of court, and reserved costs.
KwaZulu Natal Department of Social Development and Another v NUPSAW obo Mahlangu and Others (D227/12) [2014] ZALCD 58 (22 October 2014)
The applicants failed to prosecute their review application with diligence, resulting in an excessive and unjustified delay in filing the complete record and complying with procedural rules. Their explanation for the delay was inadequate and did not account for their lack of action despite repeated opportunities and offers from the respondents. The applicants' grounds for review were limited and did not present any reasonable prospects of success, as the operational changes cited were not brought to the arbitrator's attention and did not constitute a legal impediment to reinstatement. The pre…
Source excerpt
Cassimjee v Minister of Finance (455/11) [2012] ZASCA 101; 2014 (3) SA 198 (SCA) (1 June 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant failed to adequately explain or excuse the inordinate delay in prosecuting the action, particularly the 20-year period of inactivity. The appellant's reasons, including alleged health problems and difficulties with legal representatives, were not substantiated with evidence and lacked detail. The court held that the delay was inexcusable and that the respondent would suffer serious prejudice if the action were revived, given the loss of documents, unavailability of witnesses, and the absence of the seized tankers. The respondent's own inact…
Source excerpt
Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd v Mtiwya, In re: Mtiwya v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1464 /07) [2009] ZALC 182 (14 December 2009)
The court found that Willik Mtiywa failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Labour Court Rules, did not prosecute his review application with diligence, and provided no substantive response or justification for the delay. The Commissioner had properly considered all relevant circumstances in the arbitration, and no grounds for review were established. The interests of justice require finality, and the applicant’s inordinate and unjustifiable delay warranted dismissal of the review application. No condonation was sought for late filing, and there was no indication that the appl…
Source excerpt
Explore more
