Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
4 court collections
Last checked

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2025] ZAGPPHC 7

Tiador 119 CC and Others v Nedbank Limited and Others (000011/2025)

Tiador 119 CC and Others v Nedbank Limited and Others (000011/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 7 (13 January 2025)

The court struck an urgent application from the roll for lack of urgency and ordered attorney-and-client costs, finding the delay was self-created.

  • Urgency In Motion Proceedings
  • Abuse Of Process
  • Punitive Costs Order
  • Urgent-applications
  • Civil-procedure
  • Costs-orders
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAGPPHC 1247

Cartello Motors CC v Styger (054884/2023)

Cartello Motors CC v Styger (054884/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1247 (2 December 2024)

The court granted a punitive costs order after the respondent disposed of disputed property during litigation, frustrating the applicant’s vindicatory claim.

  • Punitive Costs Order
  • Vindicatory Relief
  • Mala Fide Conduct
  • Section 34 Constitution
  • Punitive-costs-order
  • Vindicatory-relief
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2024] ZALMPPHC 74

Nkondo v Limpopo Provincial Legal Practice Council (2659/2020)

Nkondo v Limpopo Provincial Legal Practice Council (2659/2020) [2024] ZALMPPHC 74 (12 July 2024)

The High Court removed an application from the roll for lack of ripeness and ordered the applicant to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.

  • Punitive Costs Order
  • Ripeness Of Application
  • Special Allocation
  • Removal From Roll
  • Ripeness-of-application
  • Removal-from-roll
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAGPJHC 385

Nene v National Lotteries Commission and Others (2024/024114)

Nene v National Lotteries Commission and Others (2024/024114) [2024] ZAGPJHC 385; (2024) 45 ILJ 1334 (GJ) (22 April 2024)

The court struck an urgent interdict application from the roll and ordered punitive costs, finding no legally recognisable case or proper basis for urgency.

  • Urgent Interdict
  • Punitive Costs Order
  • De Bonis Propriis
  • Disciplinary Inquiry
  • Abuse Of Process
  • Urgent-application
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAGPPHC 256

Ribombo v Road Accident Fund (1621/2022)

Ribombo v Road Accident Fund (1621/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 256 (27 February 2024)

The High Court struck out the RAF’s defence for repeated non-compliance with court rules and a court order, and awarded attorney-and-client costs.

  • Striking Out Of Defence
  • Non Compliance With Court Rules
  • Default Judgment Procedure
  • Punitive Costs Order
  • Civil-procedure
  • Strike-out-of-defence
Read case analysis
Family And Children [2024] ZAGPJHC 150

T.R v S.M (035901/2023)

T.R v S.M (035901/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 150 (21 February 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The issues regarding relocation had become moot as the respondent was no longer relocating, and the minor child would remain in her current location. The applicant did not provide substantive reasons or evidence why relocation was not in the child's best interests, nor did he obtain a family advocate's report. The court held that there were no genuine disputes of fact requiring referral to trial and that the applicant's access rights were adequately considered and provided for in the judgme…

  • Leave To Appeal
  • Punitive Costs Order
  • Best Interests Of Child
  • Relocation Of Minor
  • Maintenance
  • Access Rights
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2023] ZAGPJHC 236

N.J.M v NBC Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others (2021/55545)

N.J.M v NBC Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others (2021/55545) [2023] ZAGPJHC 236 (16 March 2023)

The High Court ordered an attorney to pay costs de bonis propriis after persisting with a moot application after settlement and repeated warnings.

  • Costs De Bonis Propriis
  • Punitive Costs Order
  • Ex Parte Application
  • Attorney And Client Scale
  • Costs-de-bonis-propriis
  • Punitive-costs
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2022] ZAGPJHC 938

Rodel Financial Services (PTY) Ltd v Lusolink International Export (PTY) Ltd and Another (39747/2018)

Rodel Financial Services (PTY) Ltd v Lusolink International Export (PTY) Ltd and Another (39747/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 938 (25 November 2022)

The court declared a Bedfordview property specially executable, held Rule 46A did not apply, and awarded attorney-and-client costs.

  • Execution Against Immovable Property
  • Rule 46 And Rule 46a
  • Reserve Price Setting
  • Punitive Costs Order
  • Execution-against-immovable-property
  • Rule-46a
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2022] ZAGPPHC 910

Westhills 379 Development (Pty) Limited v Buntu Foods (Pty) Ltd (32500/2020)

Westhills 379 Development (Pty) Limited v Buntu Foods (Pty) Ltd (32500/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 910 (22 November 2022)

The respondent misled the applicant and the court by denying any intention to vacate the premises while actively securing and signing a new lease elsewhere. This conduct was dishonest and amounted to constructive contempt, causing the applicant to incur unnecessary legal costs in preparing for trial and related applications. The respondent failed to notify the applicant of its actions, and its opposition to the proceedings was a misuse of court process. The court found that the merits of the eviction application had become academic and that it was inappropriate to consider them further. In ex…

  • Punitive Costs Order
  • Eviction Proceedings
  • Attorney Client Scale
  • Constructive Contempt
  • Mootness
  • Costs Discretion
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2022] ZAKZPHC 60

Matchett v Pretorius and Others (3119/2022)

Matchett v Pretorius and Others (3119/2022) [2022] ZAKZPHC 60 (12 October 2022)

The court found that the applicant's conduct did not warrant a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale. The withdrawal of the application was effected promptly after the answering affidavit was filed, and the subsequent setting down of the matter by respondents was solely for the determination of costs. The dispute arose from a domestic relationship and not a purely commercial transaction, and the accusations must be viewed in that context. There was no evidence of dishonesty, fraud, or scandalous matter in the affidavits. The court exercised its discretion and determined that on…

  • Punitive Costs Order
  • Withdrawal Of Application
  • Rule 41
  • Attorney And Client Scale
  • Party And Party Scale
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.