South Africa Case Law

Mamatu v Centlec (SOC) Ltd. and Others (3055/2025)

Mamatu v Centlec (SOC) Ltd. and Others (3055/2025) [2025] ZAFSHC 203 (1 July 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3055/2025

Judge

Molitsoane

The court found that the applicant had established urgency due to the immediate loss of salary and medical aid, and that the requirements for interim interdictory relief were satisfied. The dispute regarding the purported resignation could not be resolved on the papers and was reserved for the review proceedings in Part B. The court exercised its discretion to condone non-compliance with service rules, as no prejudice was shown by the respondents. It held that the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Labour Court in employment contract matters, relying on Baloyi v Public Protector…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Interdict
• Employment Contract Termination
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Non Compliance With Rules
• Authority To Defend
• Interim Relief

Nedbank Limited v Civil Home Construction Group CC and Others (004671/2023)

Nedbank Limited v Civil Home Construction Group CC and Others (004671/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 578 (6 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

004671/2023

Judge

Ellis

The High Court held that Nedbank failed to comply with Rule 18(1) when its summons was signed by an unauthorised person, and awarded costs to the applicants.

• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Right Of Appearance
• Non Compliance With Rules
• Attorney Authorisation
• Civil-procedure
• Uniform-rules-of-court

Steinman and Others v NSPCA and Others (Reasons) (CIV APP FC29/2024)

Steinman and Others v NSPCA and Others (Reasons) (CIV APP FC29/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 80 (8 May 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CIV APP FC29/2024

Judges

DJAJE, MASIKE, MAODI

The full court struck the appeal off the roll for non-compliance with Rule 49, citing missing power of attorney and security for costs.

• Non Compliance With Rules
• Power Of Attorney Requirement
• Security For Costs
• Appeal Struck Off Roll
• Civil-procedure
• Appeals

Kgoale v Thaba Chweu Local Municipality and Others ( Application for Leave to Appeal) (JR19/22)

Kgoale v Thaba Chweu Local Municipality and Others ( Application for Leave to Appeal) (JR19/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 136 (20 March 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR19/22

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court struck an application for leave to appeal from the roll because the applicant failed to deliver supporting submissions timeously under Rule 67(5).

• Leave To Appeal
• Non Compliance With Rules
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Leave-to-appeal
• Labour-court-procedure
• Non-compliance-with-rules

Mashao and Others v South African Local Government and Others (JR2234/23)

Mashao and Others v South African Local Government and Others (JR2234/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 134 (11 March 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2234/23

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court struck an application for leave to appeal from the roll because the applicant failed to comply with Rule 67 service and filing requirements.

• Leave To Appeal
• Condonation
• Review Application
• Labour Court Rules
• Non Compliance With Rules
• Labour-procedure

Baleni v Road Accident Fund (39299/2020)

Baleni v Road Accident Fund (39299/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 58 (29 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39299/2020

Judge

de Vos

The High Court removed a Road Accident Fund trial from the roll after finding serious non-compliance with amendment and expert-notice requirements.

• Amendment Of Particulars Of Claim
• Default Judgment
• Expert Evidence Notice
• Non Compliance With Rules
• Removal From Roll
• Amendment-of-pleadings

Romeo & Jean Couture (Pty) Ltd and Others v Business Venture Investments NO 1360 (Pty) Ltd (2020/18844)

Romeo & Jean Couture (Pty) Ltd and Others v Business Venture Investments NO 1360 (Pty) Ltd (2020/18844) [2024] ZAGPPHC 106 (26 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2020/18844

Judge

MBONGWE

The High Court rescinded an amendment order made without a required condonation application, holding the plaintiff’s delayed procedure was fatally defective.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Condonation
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Non Compliance With Rules
• Costs Orders
• Rescission-of-judgment

Mosuwe v Minister of Police and Another (18229/2011)

Mosuwe v Minister of Police and Another (18229/2011) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1821 (23 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

18229/2011

Judge

Mabuse

The High Court refused condonation for a late application for leave to appeal, finding the delay was due to attorney negligence and that the appeal had no prospects of success.

• Condonation
• Leave To Appeal
• Non Compliance With Rules
• Attorney Negligence
• Leave-to-appeal
• High-court-civil-procedure

Coetzee and Another v Master of the Free State High Court Bloemfontein and Others (3148/2021)

Coetzee and Another v Master of the Free State High Court Bloemfontein and Others (3148/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 397 (11 October 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3148/2021

Judge

Naidoo

The court dismissed a condonation application and then dismissed the main review application after repeated failures to comply with a prior procedural order.

• Condonation
• Non Compliance With Rules
• Administration Of Estates
• Late Filing
• Dismissal Of Application
• Rule-30

Dibakoane v Head of Department: Department of Culture, Sports and Recreation (Mpumalanga Province) (3309/2020)

Dibakoane v Head of Department: Department of Culture, Sports and Recreation (Mpumalanga Province) (3309/2020) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 63 (5 October 2021)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3309/2020

Judge

Greyling-Coetzer AJ

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with Rule 53 by not dispatching the record required for review proceedings. The jurisdictional challenge raised by the respondents must be determined on the applicant's pleadings, which may be informed by the record. Since the applicant's founding affidavit was not before the court, it could not be established that the record would not inform the pleadings. Therefore, the respondents are obliged to dispatch the record before the issue of jurisdiction can be determined. The applicant's notice was broader than ordinarily permitted, but only…

Source excerpt

• Rule 53 Review Procedure
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Non Compliance With Rules
• Administrative Action
• Termination Of Employment
• Costs Award