Daniels v Simul Enterprises CC and Another (A2024/040877) [2025] ZAGPJHC 453 (12 May 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
A2024/040877
Judges
Noko, Ntlama Makhanya
The High Court dismissed an appeal against rescission refusal, holding the appellant failed to show good cause, proof of service, or a bona fide defence.
Kepadisa v Minister of Police (A2024/070143, 34/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1040 (16 October 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
A2024/070143
Judges
B Mostert, S Potterill
The High Court set aside a magistrate’s dismissal of an unlawful arrest claim and remitted the matter so the appellant could still give rebuttal evidence.
Lynx Investment (Pty) Ltd and Another v Picnoord Kitchen (Pty) Ltd and Another (Application for Leave to Appeal) (2024/052019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 928 (18 September 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2024/052019
Judge
Windell
The court found that the interim mandatory interdict reinstating the respondent was not appealable as it did not finally determine the rights of the parties nor dispose of substantial relief. The order was procedural, aimed at preserving or restoring the status quo pending the final determination of the parties' rights. The applicants' conduct in executing the judgment before the expiry of the period for noting an appeal deprived the respondents of the protection afforded by the suspension rule and amounted to interference with the administration of justice. The interests of justice did not d…
Spamer v Olivier (CIV APP MAG 34/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 236 (11 September 2024)
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Case number
CIV APP MAG 34/2023
Judges
Reid, Mfenyana
The High Court dismissed an application for condonation in an appeal from summary judgment, finding inadequate explanation for delay and non-compliance.
Halle v Downs and Another (AR111/23) [2024] ZAKZPHC 128 (30 August 2024)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
AR111/23
Judges
Chithi, Sibiya
The court held that the appellant failed to establish that the judgment was void ab origine or obtained by fraud or mistake common to the parties. The settlement agreement was properly recorded, and the requirements for judgment under rule 27(9) were met. The appellant was represented by counsel when judgment was granted, so it was not a default judgment. The appellant did not provide proof that the judgment debt, interest, and costs were paid in full, nor did she apply for condonation for late filing. The claims for collection commission above 10% were justified due to VAT, and while compoun…