South Africa Case Law

F.H.M v Road Accident Fund (2023/071933)

F.H.M v Road Accident Fund (2023/071933) [2025] ZAGPJHC 398 (17 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/071933

Judge

MJ Krüger

The court refused the defendant's application for postponement, finding that no substantive application or heads of argument were filed, and the reasons advanced were insufficient. The defendant had ample opportunity to object or apply for upliftment of the bar but failed to do so. The court held that granting a postponement would unduly prejudice the plaintiff, who is of advanced age, and that the interests of justice require finalisation without further delay. The application in terms of Rule 38(2) to admit evidence by affidavit was granted. The defendant was found liable for 100% of the pl…

Source excerpt

• Loss Of Support
• Default Judgment
• Postponement Discretion
• Quantum Of Damages

Mampuru and Others v Bowman and Another (2024/008706)

Mampuru and Others v Bowman and Another (2024/008706) [2025] ZAGPJHC 212 (5 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/008706

Judge

Swanepoel

Review of an arbitration award dismissed. The court held there was no gross irregularity, and the arbitrator’s refusal of postponement did not justify setting aside the award.

• Arbitration Review
• Gross Irregularity
• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Postponement Discretion
• Discovery Procedure
• Arbitration-review

Nomatye v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (118/2020)

Nomatye v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (118/2020) [2024] ZAECMKHC 47 (30 April 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

118/2020

Judge

Rugunanan

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements of delictual liability. The pleadings did not clearly identify which constitutional or statutory right was infringed, nor did they provide a sufficient factual basis for wrongfulness or malice. The refusal of a postponement was a matter of judicial discretion, not a right, and even if the magistrate erred, such conduct was not wrongful or malicious. The evidence did not support an inference of animus iniuriandi. The appeal court's judgment setting aside the conviction was not binding or admissible to prove facts in this civil…

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Judicial Immunity
• Vicarious Liability
• Actio Iniuriarum
• Postponement Discretion
• Malice

Cape 26 (PTY) Limited v Companies and Intellectual Property Commission and Others (2021/31083)

Cape 26 (PTY) Limited v Companies and Intellectual Property Commission and Others (2021/31083) [2022] ZAGPJHC 884 (11 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/31083

Judge

Gilbert

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and ordering personal costs against Mr Tayob.

• Business Rescue
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Order
• Postponement Discretion
• Business-rescue
• Leave-to-appeal

Merafong City Local Municipality v Poo and Others (JR1643/16)

Merafong City Local Municipality v Poo and Others (JR1643/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 343 (29 November 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1643/16

Judge

Mahosi

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a default arbitration award after finding the commissioner misconstrued the dispute and awarded relief beyond it.

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Arbitration Review
• Postponement Discretion
• Condonation
• Remuneration Dispute
• Labour-law

Naidoo v Standard Bank of South Africa (A15/13)

Naidoo v Standard Bank of South Africa (A15/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 465 (13 June 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A15/13

Judges

Masipa, Bam, Strauss

The court found that the appellant was given sufficient notice of the trial date and had ample opportunity to prepare, as evidenced by correspondence and his own admissions. The application for postponement was deemed a tactic to delay proceedings, and the court a quo exercised its discretion judiciously in refusing it. The appellant's defences under the National Credit Act were rejected: he admitted receipt and response to the section 129 notice, and the agreement predated the effective date for reckless credit provisions. The certificate of balance was valid under the terms of the agreement…

Source excerpt

• Postponement Discretion
• National Credit Act Compliance
• Reckless Credit
• Certificate Of Balance
• Liquidated Claim

Alberts, Bekker, Vorster, Pillay & Asociates v Makgolego Troskie Incorporated (50109/2012)

Alberts, Bekker, Vorster, Pillay & Asociates v Makgolego Troskie Incorporated (50109/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 445 (4 December 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50109/2012

Judge

Naidoo AJ

Leave to appeal was refused in a liquidation dispute after the court found the application defective and the postponement request not bona fide.

• Leave To Appeal Requirements
• Liquidation Order
• Postponement Discretion
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Leave-to-appeal
• Postponement

Louw v Hesselink In re: Hesselink v Louw (42743/2010)

Louw v Hesselink In re: Hesselink v Louw (42743/2010) [2011] ZAGPJHC 24 (30 March 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42743/2010

Judge

D S S Moshidi

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, holding that service on former attorneys was adequate, no postponement was justified, and no appeal prospects existed.

• Divorce Settlement Enforcement
• Service Of Process
• Leave To Appeal
• Postponement Discretion
• Divorce-settlement-enforcement
• Service-of-process

S v Mamato and Others (A1006/99)

S v Mamato and Others (A1006/99) [2010] ZAGPPHC 634 (15 June 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A1006/99

Judges

NB Tuchten, SS Omar

The court found that the regional magistrate properly exercised his discretion in refusing the postponement sought by the 6th appellant's legal representative, considering the repeated delays, the interests of justice, and the rights of all parties involved. The 6th appellant had ample opportunity to prepare for trial, having been at large for 14 months before rearrest. The convictions were supported by the facts, and the sentences imposed reflected the seriousness of the offences and the appellants' previous convictions. The cumulative effect of the sentences was justified by the gravity of…

Source excerpt

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearms
• Unlawful Possession Of Ammunition
• Escape From Custody
• Fair Trial Rights
• Postponement Discretion

Kgwamane v S (CA 31/06)

Kgwamane v S (CA 31/06) [2009] ZANWHC 12 (14 May 2009)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 31/06

Judges

Hendricks, Lever

Criminal appeal set aside after the court found the accused was wrongly denied a reasonable chance to secure legal representation.

• Right To Legal Representation
• Fair Trial
• Postponement Discretion
• Gross Irregularity
• Right-to-legal-representation
• Fair-trial