South Africa Case Law

Seketso and Others v South African National Civics Organisation and Others (7016/2019)

Seketso and Others v South African National Civics Organisation and Others (7016/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 373 (17 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

7016/2019

Judge

Wepener

The court held that the mere fact that an order was granted in the urgent court does not entitle the reconsideration application to be heard urgently. The applicants must independently establish that the reconsideration should be heard as a matter of urgency. The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency, as the issues raised are complex and involve disputes of fact that cannot be properly determined on the papers in an urgent application. The applicants can obtain redress in the ordinary course, and there is no justification for deviating from normal procedure.

Source excerpt

• Urgency In Applications
• Rule 6 12 C
• Reconsideration Of Orders

Farmers Trust v Competition Commission of South Africa (20188/17)

Farmers Trust v Competition Commission of South Africa (20188/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 488; 2020 (4) SA 541 (GP) (11 May 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20188/17

Judge

R G Tolmay

High Court reconsideration of an ex parte Competition Commission search warrant was dismissed; the court upheld urgency, struck new matter, and confirmed the order.

• Search And Seizure
• Ex Parte Orders
• Price Fixing
• Reconsideration Of Orders
• Section 46 Competition Act
• Competition-law

South African Post Office SOC Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR254/16)

South African Post Office SOC Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR254/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 200; (2016) 37 ILJ 2140 (LC) (27 May 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR254/16

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court dismissed a Rule 8(10) application because it was framed as anticipating a return date for a final order, while the real relief sought was reconsideration.

• Urgent Applications
• Anticipation Of Return Day
• Reconsideration Of Orders
• Costs Award
• Urgent-applications
• Reconsideration-of-orders

Huang and Others v Commissioner of the SA Revenue Service and Another (SARS 4/2013)

Huang and Others v Commissioner of the SA Revenue Service and Another (SARS 4/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 370; 2015 (1) SA 602 (GP) (18 November 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

SARS 4/2013

Judge

Tuchten

The court held that, in the interests of justice and convenience, the inquiry convened under the Tax Administration Act should be postponed for the first, second, and third applicants until the reconsideration application challenging the search and seizure warrant is determined. The presiding officer at the inquiry does not have the discretion to adjudicate the lawfulness of evidence obtained under the warrant; only the court hearing the reconsideration application can do so. Documents or information derived from the search and seizure may not be used in the inquiry until the reconsideration…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Search And Seizure
• Ex Parte Orders
• Reconsideration Of Orders