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
Munyaradzi v Road Accident Fund (31742/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 571 (10 June 2025)
The court removed a trial matter from the roll because it was not ready, reserved costs, and required the plaintiff’s attorney to explain the filing of a misleading practice note.
Malao v Investec Bank Ltd and Others (Appeal) (A37/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 522 (28 May 2025)
A confused appeal about attachments and payment orders was removed from the roll because the relief sought and parties involved were unclear.
SKG Africa (Pty) Ltd v Special Investigating Unit and Others (2025-034050) [2025] ZAGPPHC 485 (9 May 2025)
The High Court removed an urgent interdict application from the roll for lack of urgency and corrected an earlier order, including costs against the Applicant.
Dr AB Xuma Local Municipality and Another v Local Residents Under Consolidated Case Number 988/2023 (988/2023) [2025] ZAECMHC 19 (20 March 2025)
The court removed a rescission application from the roll and ordered the applicant municipality to pay the costs because it failed to prepare the papers properly.
Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa Wolmaranstad Congregation and Another v Sewedi (M342/2021) [2025] ZANWHC 11 (24 January 2025)
The High Court held that an urgent application removed from the roll without consent or leave was effectively a withdrawal, and ordered costs against the respondent.
Rikhotso and Others v Bothongo and Others (Variation of Order) (JS243/23; JS215/23) [2024] ZALCJHB 514 (15 October 2024)
The Labour Court removed a default judgment matter from the roll after finding confusion about the correct parties and inconsistent pleadings across the file.
Limpopo Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Others v Transport Education Training Authority (TETA) (2024/098008) [2024] ZAGPJHC 912 (10 September 2024)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as their assertions were vague and unsupported by concrete evidence. The applicants had been aware of the dispute since April 2024, undermining their claim for urgent relief. The conduct of the applicants, including the late appearance of counsel and the request for removal, was unacceptable. The respondent's opposition was reasonable, given the inconvenience and prejudice caused. Consequently, the matter was removed from the roll, and the first and second applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs on an attorney and…
Source excerpt
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.
Maleka v Mundane (2024-067766) [2024] ZAGPPHC 646 (11 July 2024)
Urgent application for return of a motor vehicle was removed from the roll after the court found no adequate service and no basis to proceed.
Seripe v Swanepoel N.O and Others (303/2022) [2024] ZANWHC 154 (18 June 2024)
The court found that the applicant's Notice in terms of Rule 30/30A and Notice of Removal were procedurally defective, irrelevant, and void ab initio. The applicant failed to comply with the Practice Directives by not filing heads of argument or a practice note, and could not unilaterally remove the application from the roll, especially when the respondents had set the matter down and did not consent to its removal. The conduct of the applicant's attorney was found to be unbecoming and contrary to the duty owed to the court. The court emphasised that rules and practice directives are intended…
Source excerpt
Explore more
