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
S v Qina (B488/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 29; 2024 (2) SACR 310 (ECMk); 2024 (2) SACR 580 (ECMk) (15 March 2024)
The High Court confirmed Zolani Qina’s conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and sent the matter back for sentencing, despite concerns about delay and procedure.
Member Of The Executive Council: Responsible For Health In The Eastern Cape v Caka; In re: Caka v Member Of The Executive Council: Responsible For Health In The Eastern Cape (4947/2017) [2022] ZAECMHC 44 (22 November 2022)
The court found that the applicant's notice in terms of rule 30(2)(b) was defective as it failed to afford the respondent an opportunity to remove the causes of complaint within ten days and did not warn of the consequences of failing to do so, as required by the rule. The explanation for the delay was inadequate, with critical periods unaccounted for and no reasonable justification provided. The delay caused significant prejudice to the respondent, particularly as it delayed a minor child's claim for over four years. The court held that condonation should not be granted where there is no rea…
Source excerpt
Coetzee v T Voetpad CC and Others (521/2012) [2022] ZAWCHC 107 (27 May 2022)
The court declined to dismiss a delict claim for delay, instead directing the respondents to move the matter to pre-trial within 30 days.
Refitlhile Taxi Association and Others v Vaalharts Taxi Association and Others (2227/2014) [2021] ZANCHC 65 (14 December 2021)
The High Court dismissed an action for want of prosecution after finding an inexcusable delay, serious prejudice to the applicants, and an abuse of process.
Lumka v National Director of Public Prosecutions. Gauteng Division Pretoria (8510/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 16 (21 February 2020)
The court found that while the delay of over ten years was lengthy, it was not in itself dispositive. The reasons for the delay were largely administrative and not intended to prejudice the applicant. The applicant contributed to any prejudice by withholding his alibi evidence for over a decade, and the loss of corroborating evidence was a consequence of his own actions. The seriousness of the charges and the interests of the victims and society in seeing justice done outweighed any prejudice claimed by the applicant. The applicant did not suffer any limitation of rights during the period of…
Source excerpt
Coca-Cola Fortune (Pty) Ltd v Food & Allied Workers Union and Others (PS56/2013) [2019] ZALCPE 4 (26 March 2019)
The court found that the respondents failed to prosecute their claim with the required diligence and urgency, resulting in an excessive and unreasonable delay of nearly three years after condonation was granted. The explanations for the delay were inadequate, largely attributable to the respondents' attorneys and union officials, and did not justify the inaction. The applicant had taken reasonable steps to prompt action, including repeated correspondence and warnings. The delay prejudiced the applicant, as witnesses had left and memories had faded, undermining the prospects of a fair trial. T…
Source excerpt
Carrington-Hall v Safintra Roofing (Pty) Ltd (J825/07; JS647/07) [2018] ZALCJHB 338 (18 September 2018)
The Labour Court dismissed a nine-year-late condonation application for an unfair dismissal referral, finding the delay unexplained and prejudicial.
Minister of Safety and Security and Others v Ndaba (481/1999) [2016] ZAECMHC 51 (10 November 2016)
The High Court refused to dismiss a damages action for want of prosecution, finding the delays were tied to the plaintiff’s financial hardship and legal representation difficulties.
Maart v Minister of Defence and Others (743/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 346 (9 December 2010)
The High Court dismissed leave to appeal after finding no adequate explanation for an excessive delay in launching review proceedings, including an unexplained 18-month period.
Phoswa and Others v S (AR55/08) [2010] ZAKZPHC 98 (23 September 2010)
The court found that the reconstructed record was incoherent and inadequate for proper consideration of the appeal. The magistrate failed to comply with the reconstruction order and did not provide the appellants with an opportunity to confirm or dispute the reconstructed record. The delay in finalising the appeal caused prejudice to the appellants. As a result, the conviction and sentences could not stand, and the appeal was upheld. The inadequacy of the record counted in favour of the appellants, and no further postponement was warranted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
