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
Lyconet Austria GmbH v Weiglhofer and Others (82122/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 980 (27 September 2024)
The High Court refused leave to appeal against a final winding-up order, holding that Lyconet Austria failed to show a reasonable prospect of success.
PCS Global (Pty) Ltd v Moisel and Another (2022/11004) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1217 (22 September 2023)
The court held that prescription is a defence to be raised by special plea, not by exception. The defendants' exceptions based on prescription were not competent, as the plaintiff is not required to plead facts anticipating prescription in its particulars of claim. The court further found that the particulars of claim were sufficiently clear and concise, containing all necessary averments to sustain a cause of action. The defendants failed to demonstrate any vagueness or embarrassment or resulting prejudice. Accordingly, all exceptions were dismissed.
Source excerpt
Ngqula v South African Airways (Pty) Ltd (775/11) [2012] ZASCA 120; 2013 (1) SA 155 (SCA) (19 September 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an order authorising the removal of proceedings under section 3 of the Interim Rationalisation of High Courts Act is a simple interlocutory order and not appealable. The order does not dispose of any portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings and does not have final effect on the rights of the parties. The appellant's argument that removal prejudiced his prescription defence was rejected, as prescription must be tested when pleaded, not at the removal stage. The court emphasised that the purpose of section 3 is procedural, enabling transfer to…
Source excerpt
Santam Insurance Ltd v Booi (565/93) [1995] ZASCA 52; 1995 (3) SA 301 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 537 (A) (18 May 1995)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the institution of legal proceedings by Booi's attorney, while Booi was mentally incapacitated, was unauthorised but not void. The curator ad litem, lawfully appointed by the court, was empowered to ratify all steps taken prior to his appointment, including amending the pleadings to reflect his capacity. The ratification was valid as it occurred before judgment and did not deprive Santam of any accrued rights, particularly the right to raise prescription. The court found no merit in Santam's argument that ratification prejudiced its position, as the amend…
Source excerpt
Explore more
