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
Boulder Processing (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ngwaabe Steelbridge Business Forum and Others (6111/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 126 (25 June 2025)
The court made a final interdict against the first four respondents, but discharged the interim order against the fifth respondent for lack of proof.
CBZ Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holding SOC Ltd ; In Re Eskom Holding SOC Ltd v Zurich Insurance and Others (2022/5427) [2023] ZAGPJHC 470 (15 May 2023)
The High Court refused to remove CBZ Solutions as a defendant, finding it had a possible direct and substantial interest in the underlying dispute.
Bakgoma Ba Mothapo Council v Mothapo and Others (8368/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 59 (3 November 2022)
The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi as it is not a legitimate structure within the Mothapo royal family and its deponent is not of royal blood. The applicant's concession to the respondents' technical objections was fatal to its case. The court held that only the royal family has the authority to identify the next senior traditional leader under the Limpopo Traditional Leadership and Institution Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant should have foreseen a material dispute of fact and that motion proceedings were inappropriate. On both grounds—lack of sta…
Source excerpt
Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Master of The High Court, North West and Others (M584/2020) [2022] ZANWHC 38 (30 September 2022)
The court dismissed an application challenging trustee appointments and granted a counterclaim amending a community trust deed and ordering disclosure of trust documents.
Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure and Another v Swarts (2596/2020) [2022] ZAECQBHC 29 (9 September 2022)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal in a slip-and-fall delict case, finding no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reason to appeal.
Special Investigating Unit and Others v Lekabe (GP/09/19) [2022] ZAST 13 (9 June 2022)
The Special Tribunal dismissed a Rule 33(4) bid to separate special pleas from the main trial, finding the issues were fact-bound and needed evidence.
Songo v Minister of Police and Others (63867/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC 673 (17 November 2020)
The High Court held that notice under the state-liability Act was served timeously, dismissed the non-compliance plea, and upheld misjoinder of the third respondent.
Moselane v Voltex (Pty) t/a Lighting Structures and Atlas Group In Re Voltex (Pty) Ltd t/a Lighting Structures and Atlas group v Moselane (2054/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 194 (5 November 2020)
The High Court refused to stay a trial pending appeal in related proceedings against trustees, holding that Moselane showed no sufficient basis for delay.
Bhala Traditional Council v Dumezweni and Others (3486/2018) [2020] ZAECMHC 17 (3 June 2020)
The court found that the respondents unlawfully subdivided, demarcated, and allocated land within the applicant's jurisdiction without following the prescribed customary procedures. The respondents' bare denials and failure to engage substantively with the applicant's detailed allegations did not create a genuine dispute of fact. The applicant established a clear right to protect the customary practice of land allocation and prevent lawlessness. The points in limine raised by the respondents regarding non-joinder, misjoinder, and the authority of the deponent were rejected as lacking merit an…
Source excerpt
Tshiakatumba v Pat Zoo Accommodation CC and Others (77799/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 961 (21 May 2019)
The application was dismissed on multiple grounds. The applicant failed to join the Master of the High Court, who has a direct and substantial interest in the relief sought, rendering the application fatally defective. The applicant did not meet the statutory requirements for setting aside the liquidation and business rescue orders, nor did he demonstrate exceptional circumstances or provide satisfactory explanations for not opposing or appealing previous orders. The relief sought to restore control of the first respondent to the applicant was not competent, as directors lose control upon liq…
Source excerpt
Explore more
