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
G.D v G.J.D and Others (2427/2020) [2025] ZAECQBHC 22 (29 July 2025)
The High Court set aside an urgent order suspending business rescue, holding that affected employees and creditors were not joined and would be prejudiced.
Ulundi Municipality v Mpungose and Others (6551/2020) [2025] ZAKZPHC 73 (24 July 2025)
The court found that the land in question is under the jurisdiction of Ulundi Municipality, as established by statutory instruments and the respondents' own admissions. The Inkosi Mpungose and Traditional Council have no legal interest that would be prejudiced by non-joinder, as the land vests in the municipality. SPLUMA applies to all land, including tribal areas, and empowers the municipality to enforce its land use scheme through the courts. The High Court retains jurisdiction to grant interdicts, notwithstanding the alternative remedy in the Magistrate's Court under the National Building…
Source excerpt
Mokoena v Department of Health, Free State and Another (374/2025) [2025] ZAFSHC 214 (14 July 2025)
The court held that the Department of Home Affairs has a direct and substantial interest in any proceedings concerning the verification and amendment of identity numbers. Without its joinder, the court cannot grant declaratory relief or order the Department of Health to amend its records, as only Home Affairs is statutorily empowered to verify and rectify identity information. The applicant failed to join Home Affairs, and the absence of verification precludes the court from determining the correctness of the identity number or granting the relief sought. The point in limine of non-joinder wa…
Source excerpt
Special Investigating Unit v Bendalo Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (EC23/2024) [2025] ZAST 11 (10 July 2025)
The Tribunal found that the SIU had locus standi to bring the application, as its mandate under the Proclamation and the SIU Act extended to investigating matters connected to the National State of Disaster, including the procurement of SRD food parcels. The Tribunal rejected Bendalo's argument that the SIU's mandate was limited to events after 1 January 2020, holding that the Proclamation and Schedule must be interpreted harmoniously and that the impugned decision was sufficiently connected to the National State of Disaster. However, the Tribunal upheld Bendalo's point of non-joinder, findin…
Source excerpt
Pebe v Pebe and Others (04/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 114 (4 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application for interdictory relief, finding non-joinder of the Tribal Authority and failure to establish a clear right.
Agenbag Motor Group v Nkitseng (Appeal) (CIV APP MG 13/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 110 (1 July 2025)
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's claim for storage fees had prescribed under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, as the cause of action arose when the vehicle was first stored and not when the demand was made. The appellant failed to establish that the respondent was the correct party to be sued, as the vehicle was purchased by Ipolokeng Funeral Parlour and not by the respondent personally. The non-joinder of Ipolokeng Funeral Parlour was a fatal procedural irregularity, as it was the entity with a direct and substantial interest in the outcome. Furthermore, the…
Source excerpt
Montjane v MEC Department of Economic Development Environmental and Tourism Limpopo and Others (3734/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 119 (23 June 2025)
The court found that the applicant's relief, seeking reinstatement as a board member and deputy chairperson, would necessarily affect the rights and interests of the current incumbents, Adv Mahumani and Ms Sethume. Section 5(2) of the new Act prescribes the board's composition, and all positions are filled. Granting the relief without joining these parties would prejudice their legal interests. The test for non-joinder is whether a party has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome, and both Adv Mahumani and Ms Sethume meet this criterion. The point in limine of non-joinder was upheld…
Source excerpt
Lekalakala v Kramer Weihmann Inc and PJ Joubert (5087/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 187 (20 June 2025)
The court found that section 34(7)(c) of the Legal Practice Act, as well as analogous provisions in the Companies Acts and Attorneys Act, create joint and several liability for directors and past directors of personal liability companies. However, this statutory liability does not require all potentially liable directors to be joined in the proceedings, as the plaintiff is entitled to select whom to sue among joint and several debtors. The non-joined parties do not have a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation that would be prejudiced by the outcome, and thus…
Source excerpt
Greater Letaba Municipality v Bopape and Others (7772/2021) [2025] ZALMPPHC 117 (18 June 2025)
The High Court granted Greater Letaba Municipality an eviction order under PIE, dismissed a non-joinder plea, and gave the respondents 30 days to vacate.
First Rand Bank Limited v Cilliers and Another (24/040313) [2025] ZAGPPHC 598 (3 June 2025)
The High Court granted First Rand Bank judgment against sureties, allowed special execution against their property, set a reserve price, and rejected excussion and non-joinder defences.
Explore more
