South Africa Case Law

Rabboni Centre Ministries v Multisand (Pty) Ltd and Others (2010/67006)

Rabboni Centre Ministries v Multisand (Pty) Ltd and Others (2010/67006) [2024] ZAGPPHC 427 (3 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2010/67006

Judge

Labuschagne

The court found that the applicant failed to establish grounds for rescission under Rule 42 or common law. The absence of the City of Tshwane as a party at the time of the original order did not render the order erroneously granted, as the municipality had no legal interest in the declaration of a public road over private property. The road in question was not intended to be municipal infrastructure but a common law servitude for public access. The applicant's reliance on justus error was not supported by the facts, as there was no mistake common to the parties that vitiated true consent. The…

Source excerpt

• Public Road Declaration
• Servitude Of Right Of Way
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Justus Error
• Municipal Infrastructure
• Rule 42 Application

Mantella Trading 341 CC v Thompson N.O and Another (19066/09)

Mantella Trading 341 CC v Thompson N.O and Another (19066/09) [2013] ZAGPPHC 352 (19 November 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19066/09

Judge

H J Fabricius

The High Court declared a road in question to be a public road under the Limpopo Roads Agency Act and made a tailored costs order after the defendants conceded.

• Public Road Declaration
• Limpopo Roads Agency Act
• Costs Award
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Public-road-declaration
• Costs-order

Shelldrake Game Range CC and Others v Scottco (Pty) Ltd (33487/2004)

Shelldrake Game Range CC and Others v Scottco (Pty) Ltd (33487/2004) [2007] ZAGPHC 37 (25 April 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

33487/2004

Judge

Pretorius

The court found that there was a bona fide, genuine dispute of fact regarding the existence and nature of the right of way over the disputed access road, which could not be resolved on the papers. The applicants were aware of the factual disputes but proceeded by way of application rather than summons. The court held that the matter must be referred to trial, with the notice of motion standing as a simple summons and the notice of intention to oppose as a notice of intention to defend. The applicants were ordered to deliver a declaration within twenty days, after which the rules relating to a…

Source excerpt

• Servitude Of Right Of Way
• Prescription Act
• Public Road Declaration
• Dispute Of Fact
• Costs Award