South Africa Case Law

Sasria SOC v TUHF Limited (2023/046891)

Sasria SOC v TUHF Limited (2023/046891) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1296 (23 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/046891

Judge

Adams

The court found that the respondent's delay in prosecuting the action was inordinate, unexplained, and inexcusable. The respondent failed to take any substantive steps to advance the litigation for over four years, did not produce expert reports, and did not engage in pre-trial procedures. The explanation provided by the respondent for the delay was vague and insufficient. The delay has caused significant prejudice to the applicant, as the passage of time has rendered it impossible to secure reliable witnesses and evidence, thereby making a fair trial unattainable. The court concluded that th…

Source excerpt

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Delay In Prosecution
• Abuse Of Process
• Prejudice To Defendant

Berrange N.O. and Others v Vorster and Others (37718/2006)

Berrange N.O. and Others v Vorster and Others (37718/2006) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1105 (3 November 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37718/2006

Judge

A.A. Louw

High Court case dismissing an action for want of prosecution after nearly six years of inactivity, finding the delay inexcusable and seriously prejudicial.

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Abuse Of Process
• Delay In Prosecution
• Prejudice To Defendant
• Liquidation Claims
• Dismissal-for-want-of-prosecution

Hasmukh v International Bank of Southern Africa and Others; InRe: International Bank of Southern Africa and Others v Hasmukh (2001/17748)

Hasmukh v International Bank of Southern Africa and Others; InRe: International Bank of Southern Africa and Others v Hasmukh (2001/17748) [2014] ZAGPJHC 325 (28 October 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2001/17748

Judge

Van der Linde, AJ

The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with several material aspects of a prior court order, including providing a list of documents for the trial bundle and adequate supplementary responses to requests for further particulars. The plaintiff's delays in prosecuting the action were inordinate and inexcusable, with no satisfactory explanation provided for significant periods of inactivity and repeated failures to proceed on allocated trial dates. The court held that the primary responsibility for progressing litigation lies with the plaintiff, and the defendants had suffered prejud…

Source excerpt

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Case Management Orders
• Pre Trial Procedure
• Delay In Prosecution
• Irregular Proceedings
• Prejudice To Defendant