Hlabang Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd v Caterpillar Financial Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025/115482) [2025] ZAGPJHC 761 (3 August 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2025/115482
Judge
Snyckers
The High Court set aside an ex parte repossession order after finding Catfin relied on generic, unparticularised allegations and failed to justify dispensing with notice.
Caterpillar Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Khongo Investments (Pty) Ltd (2025/015339) [2025] ZAGPJHC 692 (30 June 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2025/015339
Judge
JF Pretorius
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…
M.M.S v H.K (2023/117058) [2025] ZAGPJHC 387 (17 April 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2023/117058
Judge
S D J Wilson
Leave to appeal was refused because material factual disputes prevented final interdictory relief, and the alleged non-disclosure did not change the result.
M.M.S v H.K and Another (2023/117058) [2025] ZAGPJHC 88 (7 February 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2023/117058
Judge
S D J Wilson
The High Court discharged a rule nisi and dismissed an interdict application and counter-application over disputed defamation and harassment claims, citing material non-disclosure.
Tshipu v Bryte Insurance Company Limited and Another (056972/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 81 (31 January 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
056972/2024
Judge
L.A. Retief
The High Court dismissed an insured’s claim for the retail value of a stolen vehicle because he failed to prove compliance with the policy’s tracker requirement.
Bright Light Solar PTA1 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Village Mall Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/140583) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1295 (19 December 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2024/140583
Judge
PG Louw
High Court reconsideration set aside an ex parte interdict because the applicants failed to disclose material facts, including prior debt and liquidity concerns.
E.M.T v N.T (3672/2023) [2024] ZAECQBHC 60 (10 October 2024)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Case number
3672/2023
Judge
Mullins
The court found the respondent in contempt of a Rule 43 maintenance order, but suspended the sentence. It also reduced interim maintenance from R15,000 to R7,500.
Klaase N.O and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (18916/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 303 (9 October 2024)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
18916/2022
Judge
Gordon-Turner
The court found that the trustees were properly served with the preservation order and accompanying papers, which clearly warned of the risk of forfeiture and the need to enter an appearance to defend. The explanation for their default—reliance on attorneys who allegedly failed to advise them—was unsatisfactory, especially given their ongoing representation in related civil and criminal proceedings and their demonstrated capacity to understand complex matters. The court held that the NDPP's failure to disclose the SIU action at the preservation stage was not material, as the SIU action and th…
Swanepoel N.O. (Executor in the Estate Late Mignon Adelia Steyn) v Profmed Medical Scheme (CCT 336/22) [2024] ZACC 23; 2025 (1) SA 33 (CC); 2025 (2) BCLR 205 (CC) (9 October 2024)
The Constitutional Court held that the right to just administrative action under PAJA is transmissible to a deceased estate where the estate has a financial interest in the outcome. The Appeal Board's proceedings were procedurally unfair, as Ms Steyn was denied the opportunity to respond to new grounds (hip arthroscopy) and lead evidence. The Court found that mere diagnostic procedures and common conditions such as gastritis do not constitute material non-disclosure under section 29(2)(e) of the Medical Schemes Act. The statutory test for materiality does not dispense with the common law requ…
