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
Shube v Road Accident Fund (2754/2019) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 24 (31 March 2025)
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s RAF claim had prescribed because it was invalid from inception and the required statutory documents were not properly served.
Long v Road Accident Fund (2671/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 394 (10 December 2024)
The High Court struck a default judgment application from the roll because the plaintiff failed to prove service of summons. No costs order was made.
Motjamela v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C73/2021) [2024] ZALCCT 58 (28 November 2024)
Application to reinstate a deemed-withdrawn review was dismissed because the applicant failed to show good cause, explain the delay, or show prospects of success.
NUMSA obo Silinda v Kgomo and Another (J646/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 423 (7 November 2024)
The Labour Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a contempt ruling, finding no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons to hear the appeal.
Nedbank Limited v Naidoo (2020/14903) [2022] ZAGPJHC 244 (22 April 2022)
The application for default judgment was struck from the roll because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that the original summons and particulars of claim were properly served on the defendant. Additionally, the damages claim was not properly quantified in the original pleadings, and the subsequent damages affidavit was not filed or served in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Court. The plaintiff did not utilize the recognized mechanisms for amending or supplementing its pleadings, nor did it seek condonation for any procedural non-compliance. In the absence of these proc…
Source excerpt
Mahlangu v Government Employees Pension Fund and Another (3297/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 814 (17 August 2020)
The High Court ordered the Government Employees Pension Fund to recalculate Mahlangu’s pension using service from 23 January 1980 to 31 December 2015 and pay costs on an attorney-client scale.
National Credit Regulator v PCL Trust t/a PCL Cash Loans-Louis Trichardt (NCT/103940/2018/57(1)) [2018] ZANCT 85 (4 July 2018)
The Tribunal found that the application was not adequately served on the Respondent. Attempts at service via registered mail and courier were unsuccessful, and notices were sent to an outdated email address. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the relief sought, including de-registration and an administrative penalty, the Tribunal was not satisfied that proper service had occurred. The Tribunal also noted confusion regarding the Respondent's trading name and instructed the Applicant to verify the Respondent's details and ensure correct citation before proceeding.
Source excerpt
Sakata v Bayport Securitisation (Pty) Ltd, Sakata v Bayport Securitisation (Pty) Ltd (CA134/2017, CA135/2017) [2017] ZAECBHC 18 (16 November 2017)
The High Court found that the magistrate erred in upholding the respondent's point in limine and dismissing the rescission application. The appellant was not properly notified of the judgment by registered mail as required by section 58(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, and there was no proof of postage. The written consent to judgment was not informed, as the appellant was not made aware of the respondent's cause of action. The supporting affidavit for the request for judgment was deficient, lacking proper quantification of the debt and failing to lodge the original credit agreement. The ju…
Source excerpt
Oliver v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR1578/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 565 (12 August 2016)
The Labour Court removed a CCMA review from the roll because the applicant did not show proper service on the employer and filed no condonation application for lateness.
IDWU obo Mputi v CCMA and Others (JR2848/2010) [2015] ZALCJHB 453 (4 December 2015)
The application was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to effect proper service and filing of the amended notice of motion and supporting affidavit, and failure to provide proper proof of service. The court found that the proceedings were likely conducted without the third respondent's knowledge, as service was not effected at the address requested by the third respondent's representative. The service affidavit was commissioned before the alleged date of service, undermining its credibility. Additionally, the applicant failed to prosecute the review application with due diligence, as th…
Source excerpt
Explore more
