South Africa Case Law

Caterpillar Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Khongo Investments (Pty) Ltd (2025/015339)

Caterpillar Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Khongo Investments (Pty) Ltd (2025/015339) [2025] ZAGPJHC 692 (30 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/015339

Judge

JF Pretorius

The court found that Catfin failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the audi alteram partem principle. Catfin did not discharge its duty of utmost good faith, having failed to disclose material facts regarding ongoing negotiations, settlement attempts, and the existence of insurance. The reasons advanced for ex parte relief were speculative and unsupported by evidence. Notice of the application would not have defeated the purpose of the order, especially as Catfin had previously notified Khongo of its intention to bring urgent proceedings. The court held that…

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Applications
• Reconsideration Under Rule 6 12 C
• Duty Of Utmost Good Faith
• Material Non Disclosure
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Interim Interdicts

Makhubele and Another v University of the Witwatersrand and Another (2024/028930)

Makhubele and Another v University of the Witwatersrand and Another (2024/028930) [2025] ZAGPJHC 590 (15 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/028930

Judge

Mfenyana

The court found that the application, styled as a reconsideration, was in fact a hybrid of multiple applications—reconsideration, rescission, review, and section 18 relief—none of which were competent or compliant with the Rules of Court. The reconsideration application did not meet the requirements of rule 6(12)(c), as the prior order was made in the presence of the applicants and opposed by the respondents. The rescission application lacked grounds, and the review application did not pass the threshold for review. The repeated institution of similar applications, all relating to the same un…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Process
• Urgent Application Requirements
• Reconsideration Under Rule 6 12 C
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Security For Costs

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Maine Management & Chartered Accountant (Pty) Ltd (4395/2023; 4647/2023)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Maine Management & Chartered Accountant (Pty) Ltd (4395/2023; 4647/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 83 (19 March 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4395/2023; 4647/2023

Judge

Naidoo

The court dismissed two reconsideration applications against preservation orders, finding prima facie evidence that municipal payments may have been unlawful proceeds.

• Preservation Order
• Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Municipal Tender Irregularities
• Urgent Application
• Reconsideration Under Rule 6 12 C

Dibakoane N.O v Van den Bos and Others; Van den Bos and Others v Gugulethu and Others (2021/2054; 2020/28772)

Dibakoane N.O v Van den Bos and Others; Van den Bos and Others v Gugulethu and Others (2021/2054; 2020/28772) [2021] ZAGPJHC 652 (17 August 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/2054; 2020/28772

Judge

MJ Engelbrecht

The court found that the order appointing the administrator did not impose any obligations on the respondents, as they were not cited in the original application. There was no proper service of the order on the relevant parties, and the requirements for contempt were not met. The administrator's appointment was driven by a faction of disaffected owners, many in arrears, and was not justified by the facts. The Body Corporate's affairs were being managed by duly elected trustees and a registered managing agent, and there was no evidence of serious mismanagement or substantial prejudice warranti…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Titles Act
• Appointment Of Administrator
• Contempt Of Court
• Joinder
• Reconsideration Under Rule 6 12 C
• Removal Of Administrator

C and C Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Townsend; Townsend v C and C Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd (16527/19)

C and C Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Townsend; Townsend v C and C Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd (16527/19) [2019] ZAWCHC 141 (29 October 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16527/19

Judge

P.A.L. Gamble

The court held that reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c) is not available to a party who was aware of the urgent application and chose not to oppose it, as the order was granted by default and not ex parte. Both Bailey and the company were properly served, had legal advice, and made a conscious decision not to oppose the provisional liquidation. The company’s commercial insolvency was established on the papers, with substantial debts to creditors and SARS, and a lack of liquid assets. The provisional liquidation order was justified, and no grounds existed for judicial interference or reversal.…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Liquidation
• Urgent Motion Practice
• Reconsideration Under Rule 6 12 C
• Commercial Insolvency
• Creditor Standing

K.J v O.A.J and Another (67591/2013)

K.J v O.A.J and Another (67591/2013) [2019] ZAGPPHC 126 (18 April 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

67591/2013

Judge

Makhuvele

The High Court set aside an urgent contempt order granted in the respondent’s absence, found no wilful contempt proved, and dismissed the application with costs.

• Rule 43 Interim Maintenance
• Contempt Of Court
• Urgent Application Procedure
• Reconsideration Under Rule 6 12 C
• Rule-6-12-c-reconsideration
• Urgent-application-procedure