South Africa Case Law

Standard Bank of SA v Rahme and Another (17/46904; 27740/2018; 27741/2018; 3765/2019; 11912/2018)

Standard Bank of SA v Rahme and Another (17/46904; 27740/2018; 27741/2018; 3765/2019; 11912/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 287 (3 September 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

17/46904; 27740/2018; 27741/2018; 3765/2019; 11912/2018

Judge

Siwendu

The High Court held that amended Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules does not apply retrospectively to summary judgment applications filed before 1 July 2019.

• Summary Judgment
• Retrospective Application Of Rules
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Procedural Vs Substantive Rights
• Summary-judgment
• Rule-32

Nkabinde and Another v Judicial Service Commission President of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal and Others (13/39093)

Nkabinde and Another v Judicial Service Commission President of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal and Others (13/39093) [2014] ZAGPJHC 217; 2015 (1) SA 279 (GJ); [2014] 4 All SA 637 (GJ); 2014 (12) BCLR 1477 (GJ) (26 September 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13/39093

Judges

H Mayat, CJ Claassen, F Kgomo

The court held that the Judicial Service Commission's decisions in April and October 2012 to apply the procedures of the Amended JSC Act to a complaint lodged in 2008 were lawful and did not constitute impermissible retrospective application. The procedures introduced by the Amended JSC Act are procedural in nature and do not impair any vested substantive rights of the applicants or other parties. The SCA's order remitting the matter for further investigation required the Commission to use prevailing procedures. The requirement in section 14(3) for complaints to be lodged by affidavit or affi…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Independence
• Separation Of Powers
• Retrospective Application Of Statutes
• Judicial Service Commission Act
• Constitutional Review
• Procedural Vs Substantive Rights