South Africa Case Law

Bojosinyane v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Others (2025/013682)

Bojosinyane v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Others (2025/013682) [2025] ZALCJHB 222 (9 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/013682

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court recorded the first respondent’s withdrawal of leave to appeal and struck the second and third respondents’ application off the roll for non-compliance with the rules.

• Leave To Appeal Procedure
• Withdrawal Of Application
• Non Compliance With Court Rules
• Leave-to-appeal-procedure
• Withdrawal-of-application
• Non-compliance-with-court-rules

Dr AB Xuma Local Municipality and Another v Local Residents Under Consolidated Case Number 988/2023 (988/2023)

Dr AB Xuma Local Municipality and Another v Local Residents Under Consolidated Case Number 988/2023 (988/2023) [2025] ZAECMHC 19 (20 March 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

988/2023

Judge

A S Zono

The court removed a rescission application from the roll and ordered the applicant municipality to pay the costs because it failed to prepare the papers properly.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Costs Order
• Non Compliance With Court Rules
• Removal From Roll
• Rescission-of-judgment
• Costs-order

Ribombo v Road Accident Fund (1621/2022)

Ribombo v Road Accident Fund (1621/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 256 (27 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

1621/2022

Judge

de Vos

The High Court struck out the RAF’s defence for repeated non-compliance with court rules and a court order, and awarded attorney-and-client costs.

• Striking Out Of Defence
• Non Compliance With Court Rules
• Default Judgment Procedure
• Punitive Costs Order
• Civil-procedure
• Strike-out-of-defence

Zwane v University of South Africa (J 326/ 21)

Zwane v University of South Africa (J 326/ 21) [2021] ZALCJHB 152 (22 June 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 326/ 21

Judge

Prinsloo

The court found that the applicant's application was fatally defective due to non-compliance with the Labour Court Rules, including the absence of a valid notice of motion and commissioned affidavit. The relief sought was based on a misinterpretation of the previous court order, which only stayed the CCMA proceedings pending the review application and did not require the respondent to prosecute the review urgently. The applicant's request to uplift the stay and bar the respondent from appeals was incompetent and contrary to constitutional principles. The application was meritless and an abuse…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Application
• Non Compliance With Court Rules
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Costs Award
• Jurisdictional Ruling

Modika v CCMA Johannesburg and Others (JR1359/18)

Modika v CCMA Johannesburg and Others (JR1359/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 128; (2021) 42 ILJ 1982 (LC) (9 June 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1359/18

Judge

C Prinsloo

The applicant's review application was dismissed due to flagrant and material non-compliance with the Labour Court Rules and Practice Manual. The application was filed more than two years late, was not properly served on the respondents, lacked a valid condonation application, and failed to file the record or required notices. The applicant's attorneys persisted with the application despite being warned of its defects, demonstrating a reckless disregard for their professional duties. The Court found this conduct exceptional and ordered costs de bonis propriis against the applicant's attorneys…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Non Compliance With Court Rules
• Costs De Bonis Propriis

Absa Bank Ltd v Schramm (44505/13)

Absa Bank Ltd v Schramm (44505/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 316 (1 November 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44505/13

Judge

N P Mngqibisa-Thusi

The High Court granted summary judgment to Absa Bank, upheld the certificate of balance, and declared the mortgaged property specially executable.

• Summary Judgment
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Certificate Of Balance
• Non Compliance With Court Rules
• Declaration Of Executability
• Summary-judgment

Hotellica obo Groenewald v Good Logistics Solutions and Others (C440/2010)

Hotellica obo Groenewald v Good Logistics Solutions and Others (C440/2010) [2013] ZALCCT 56 (31 May 2013)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C440/2010

Judge

Steenkamp

The Labour Court dismissed a union’s stalled review application for repeated non-compliance with Rule 7A and awarded punitive costs.

• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Non Compliance With Court Rules
• Punitive Costs
• Trade Union Representation
• Labour-law
• Review-of-arbitration-award

Philander and Another v First Rand Bank and Others (753/2010)

Philander and Another v First Rand Bank and Others (753/2010) [2012] ZAECPEHC 63 (11 September 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

753/2010

Judge

N Dambuza

The High Court dismissed an unrepresented urgent application to set aside a judgment and writ of execution because the papers were unintelligible and non-compliant with court rules.

• Non Compliance With Court Rules
• Service Of Process
• Costs Order
• Form Of Notice Of Motion
• Civil-procedure
• Court-rules

Fourie v De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited (1302/1995)

Fourie v De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited (1302/1995) [2004] ZANCHC 49 (24 February 2004)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1302/1995

Judge

Majiedt R

The court awarded costs de bonis propriis against the respondent's attorney after finding gross negligence in proceeding without proper authority or investigation.

• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Removal From Roll
• Non Compliance With Court Rules
• Costs-de-bonis-propriis
• Attorney-negligence
• Civil-procedure

Snyman v Snyman (25/1992)

Snyman v Snyman (25/1992) [1994] ZASCA 70 (20 May 1994)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

25/1992

Judges

Botha, Kumleben, Nicholas

The court held that the breaches of the rules regarding the preparation and filing of the record were egregious and that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delays and errors. The failures were solely attributable to the appellant's attorneys, whose conduct was described as shockingly negligent and inexcusable. The court found that the explanations offered were either wholly inadequate or entirely absent, and that the record remained defective even after multiple attempts to rectify it. The court reaffirmed the principle that condonation may be refused in cases of flagrant breach…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Non Compliance With Court Rules
• Record Preparation
• Attorney Negligence