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
Elvis and Another v Registrar of Deeds Pretoria and Others (49/2011B) [2025] ZALCC 31 (28 July 2025)
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the underlying order was interim, not finally determinative, and the dispute had become moot after 30 days.
Caterpillar Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Khongo Investments (Pty) Ltd (2025/015339) [2025] ZAGPJHC 692 (30 June 2025)
The court found that Catfin failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the audi alteram partem principle. Catfin did not discharge its duty of utmost good faith, having failed to disclose material facts regarding ongoing negotiations, settlement attempts, and the existence of insurance. The reasons advanced for ex parte relief were speculative and unsupported by evidence. Notice of the application would not have defeated the purpose of the order, especially as Catfin had previously notified Khongo of its intention to bring urgent proceedings. The court held that…
Source excerpt
Simelani v Minister of Defence and Others (62987/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 407 (10 May 2018)
The court upheld res judicata and lis pendens objections to an application to enforce a lapsed interim interdict and postponed the remaining prayers sine die.
Food And Allied Workers Union and Others v Chauke and Others (C122/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 246 (12 July 2016)
The Labour Court dismissed leave to appeal against an interim order suspending expulsion and discipline within FAWU, holding the order was not final in effect.
Finishing Touch 163 (Pty) Ltd v BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa Ltd and Others (363/2011) [2012] ZASCA 49; 2013 (2) SA 204 (SCA) (30 March 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a review application had been properly initiated and served under a prior court order, so the interdict had not lapsed.
Janse van Rensburg and Another v Minister of Trade and Industry and Another (CCT13/99) [2000] ZACC 18; 2001 (1) SA 29 ; 2000 (11) BCLR 1235 (CC) (29 September 2000)
Section 7(3) of the Act, as originally enacted, was rendered moot by subsequent legislative amendment requiring judicial authorisation for searches and seizures. The Court declined to confirm the High Court's declaration of invalidity for section 7(3) as no live controversy remained. Section 8(5)(a) of the Act, however, remains unamended and empowers the Minister to stay business practices and attach assets without procedural fairness, adequate guidance, or prior warning. The section allows for drastic action based on untested allegations, affecting not only those under investigation but also…
Source excerpt
Explore more
