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
Musekwa v SA Taxi Development Finance (Pty) Ltd (2018/27931) [2025] ZAGPJHC 593 (6 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind default judgment under Rule 42(1)(a), finding the delay unreasonable and no material error in granting judgment.
Regenesys Management (Pty) Ltd v Mantshule N.O and Others (JR316/21) [2022] ZALCJHB 358 (22 November 2022)
The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory or detailed explanation for the extreme delay in launching the review applications, which were 381 and 318 days late respectively. The court found that the prejudice caused by the delay favoured the fourth respondent, whose employment had terminated years prior. The principles governing condonation in labour law require strict scrutiny, and without a compelling explanation for the delay, prospects of success are immaterial. The delay was found to be excessive and unreasonable, even under section 158(1)(g) which does not prescribe a specific time…
Source excerpt
M v M (1275/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 185 (26 July 2022)
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not show reasonable prospects of success or a compelling reason to hear the appeal.
T.A.M v M.F.M (1275/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 129 (12 May 2022)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a default divorce order, holding that the applicant failed to explain a seven-month delay reasonably.
Ledwaba N.O v Mthembu and Others (25312/2016) [2021] ZAGPJHC 640 (4 November 2021)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against refusal of rescission, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no basis to disturb the delay finding.
Business Unity South Africa v Congress of South African Trade Unions and Others (J1908/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 252; [2020] 1 BLLR 38 (LC); (2020) 41 ILJ 174 (LC) (1 October 2019)
The court found that while the requirements of section 77(1)(c) had been met, the issuing of the section 77(1)(d) notice was unduly delayed, and multiple notices were improperly issued based on a single referral. Section 77 must be interpreted to require that a section 77(1)(d) notice is issued within a reasonable period after the completion of the section 77(1)(c) process. The procedural safeguards in section 77 are designed to ensure the effective resolution of disputes and to balance the interests of all social partners, including the public. The delay and repeated notices undermined the r…
Source excerpt
Department of Labour and Others v Tsatsi (J1631/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 367 (30 September 2014)
The Labour Court dismissed a rescission application as not brought within a reasonable time after the Department delayed nearly five months without explanation.
Sappi Timber Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Boskor Sawmill v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (P502/02) [2003] ZALC 22; (2003) 24 ILJ 846 (LC) (22 February 2003)
The court held that the delay and non-service of the conciliation certificate by the CCMA did not render the certificate invalid. The certificate was factually correct and served its evidentiary and jurisdictional purposes. The Labour Relations Act does not prescribe a time limit for issuing the certificate, and the word 'must' in section 135(5)(a) is peremptory regarding the obligation to issue the certificate, but not as to timing. The applicant did not establish material prejudice resulting from the delay or non-service, as it received the certificate when needed for arbitration. The right…
Source excerpt
Xayiya v African National Congress and Another (C 73/98) [1999] ZALC 152 (1 October 1999)
The Labour Court refused a review of the CCMA’s refusal to condone a late unfair-dismissal referral, finding the application was filed out of time and poorly explained.
Explore more
