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
Ntshosa Madiba Incorporated v Mokhawane and Others (8447/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 120 (23 June 2025)
The High Court granted the Road Accident Fund leave to intervene, discharged an ex parte rule nisi, and dismissed an application concerning retention of contingency fees.
Masingi v Masingi and Another - Appeal (HCA31/2021) [2023] ZALMPPHC 101 (31 October 2023)
Appeal upheld in a spoliation dispute over a Hilux, after the court found material non-disclosure in an urgent ex parte application and misapplication of spoliation principles.
Webber N.O and Others v Hein (CA 221/2020) [2021] ZAECGHC 76 (10 August 2021)
The High Court upheld an appeal, discharged an ex parte rule nisi, and ordered punitive costs after finding procedural defects and material non-disclosure.
Commissioner: Companies & Intellectual Property Commission v Independent Music Performance Rights Assoc and Another (37475/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 668 (23 November 2020)
The High Court discharged an ex parte anti-dissipation order after finding the Commissioner failed to disclose a material undertaking by IMPRA.
Van Der Merwe and Another v Sheriff of the High Court Germiston and Others (24084/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 394 (14 November 2013)
High Court rescinded a sequestration order after finding the applicants had standing and were not notified of the proceedings; it declined to compel the Sheriff to proceed with the sale.
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Van Zyl and Others (39358/2007) [2008] ZAGPHC 154 (3 June 2008)
The High Court discharged a provisional restraint order under POCA after finding material non-disclosure and misleading presentation of the amount involved.
Disney Enterprises, Inc v Griesel NO and Others (12003/04) [2004] ZAGPJHC 1 (7 September 2004)
The court found that the first respondent was prima facie properly appointed to represent the estate and was entitled to institute proceedings. The respondent established a prima facie case of copyright infringement by showing that the applicant, through its licensing arrangements, may have caused or authorised the alleged infringing acts in South Africa. The applicant's arguments regarding lack of direct involvement and non-disclosure of material facts were insufficient to warrant setting aside the ex parte attachment order. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent, not…
Source excerpt
Explore more
