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
Shezi v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank and Others (2025/088122) [2025] ZAGPJHC 627 (23 June 2025)
Urgent application struck from the roll with costs after the court found the urgency was self-created and alternative relief was available.
South African Council for Architectural Profession v O'Reilly and Another (28641/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 559 (2 June 2025)
The High Court postponed an enrichment trial sine die after finding the defendants were not ready to proceed because key documents had not been uploaded to Caselines.
Mkhabela Incorporated and Others v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (2022-16350) [2025] ZAGPJHC 479 (19 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an unopposed rescission and condonation application after the applicants failed to appear or comply with practice directives.
Kataka v Standard Bank (060093/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 512 (16 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a default judgment and warrant of delivery, finding the applicant was in wilful default and lacked a bona fide defence.
Cytek Cycles Distributor CC v Bicycle Company (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/015605) [2025] ZAGPJHC 450 (2 May 2025)
High Court postponement ruling on legal practitioner unavailability, with wasted costs and fee forfeiture ordered after an opposed motion was delayed sine die.
Livingstone v Nedbank (3066/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 353 (29 April 2025)
The court set aside an irregular notice of removal, postponed a rescission application sine die, and ordered the applicant’s attorneys to explain possible de bonis propriis costs.
Smit v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (010734/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 309 (28 March 2025)
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with Rule 32(2)(c) of the Uniform Rules of Court by not stating a specific hearing date in its summary judgment application. The Practice Directive cannot override the Uniform Rules, and compliance with the Directive does not excuse non-compliance with the Rules. The omission constituted an irregular proceeding under Rule 30. The respondent is afforded 30 days to amend its notice to comply with Rule 32(2)(c). Costs are awarded on a party and party scale, and the request for costs de bonis propriis is rejected as unwarranted in the circumsta…
Source excerpt
Moodley v Crazy Plastics Pty Ltd and Another (A2024/052750) [2025] ZAGPJHC 363 (28 March 2025)
The court found that although the respondents' initial notice of appeal was procedurally defective, the defects were remedied promptly when a case number was allocated and subsequent filings complied with the Practice Directive. The notice was served within the prescribed period, and the applicant was aware of the respondents' intention to prosecute the appeal. The absence of a stamp and case number, later corrected, did not warrant a finding that the appeal had lapsed under Rule 49(7). The court held that procedural rules must be enforced, but technicalities should not unjustly impede the ri…
Source excerpt
Reddy v Growthpoint Properties Limited (2018/45020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 408 (27 March 2025)
The court found that the first order compelling discovery and striking out the applicant's defence was erroneously granted. The respondent's application was premature, as discovery notices were served before the close of pleadings, and the applicant was not properly notified of the relief sought. The order did not comply with Rule 35(7) or the applicable practice directives, as it implemented a one-step strike-out process without allowing the applicant an opportunity to explain or seek condonation. The judge was not made aware of crucial facts, including the prematurity of the discovery notic…
Source excerpt
Ncongwane v Teixeira and Others (2024/056876) [2025] ZAGPJHC 712 (10 March 2025)
The High Court struck an application from the roll for failure to comply with procedural requirements for opposed motion enrolment and ordered the applicant to pay costs.
Explore more
