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
Eridanus VC1 Ltd and Another v Afropulse 466 (Pty) Ltd Others (2023/042954) [2024] ZAGPJHC 693 (10 July 2024)
High Court refused an urgent contempt application and a bid to reopen it, finding no wilful contempt and dismissing business rescue relief and costs on Scale B.
Mgaga v Britz N.O. and Another (19935/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 480 (20 May 2024)
The High Court found that the magistrate was not biased and did not commit a reviewable irregularity. The applicant was afforded opportunities to present his case, including launching an application to re-open the case and challenging the ruling to submit a buccal sample. The evidence presented by the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for re-opening the case, as no new material evidence was provided. The court held that the absence of chain of custody for the previous buccal samples justified the order for a new sample, and the applicant's constitutional rights were not unreasonably…
Source excerpt
Ngcebetsha and Another v Legal Practice Council of South Africa (58530/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1164 (4 September 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to reopen a matter for new evidence, finding no adequate explanation for not leading it earlier and no basis for admission.
PSG Wealth Financial Planning (Pty) Ltd v Gamble Investments (Pty) Ltd (CA143/2020) [2021] ZAECGHC 80 (31 August 2021)
The court held that the discretion exercised by the court a quo in granting the respondent leave to re-open its case and recall its expert witness was proper and in accordance with established legal principles. The materiality of the expert evidence was undisputed, and the respondent's legal representatives had misconstrued the pleadings, but this error did not justify refusing the application to re-open. The court found that the prejudice to the respondent if the application was refused, namely the risk of prescription and loss of remedy, outweighed any prejudice to the appellant. The court…
Source excerpt
P E obo L E v Member of the Executive Council for Health of the Gauteng Province (37431/2013) [2020] ZAGPJHC 276 (9 October 2020)
The court allowed the plaintiff to reopen her case to lead further radiology expert evidence and file the required expert notice and summary.
Gamble Investments (Pty) Ltd v Santam Ltd and Another (2921/2017) [2020] ZAECPEHC 9 (28 April 2020)
The court allowed the plaintiff to reopen its case to lead expert evidence on insurance-loss quantification, but ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs.
Hemmingways Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd v P D Naidoo & Associates Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Another (2013/42685) [2017] ZAGPJHC 377 (11 June 2017)
The court found that the arbitrator had acted fairly and within his discretion, having allowed the applicant multiple opportunities to amend its claim and lead evidence over a protracted period. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the refusal to reopen its case caused substantial procedural unfairness or that the evidence sought to be introduced was sufficiently material to justify intervention. The court emphasized the principle of party autonomy in arbitration and the limited grounds for judicial interference, noting that the arbitrator's ruling was neither arbitrary nor contrary to pu…
Source excerpt
Blose v Ethekwini Municipality (20053/2014) [2015] ZASCA 87 (29 May 2015)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the magistrate failed to exercise her discretion judicially when refusing the plaintiff's application to reopen his case to submit proof of compliance with s 3(1)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act. The magistrate's approach to balancing prejudice was flawed, as she did not properly consider that the plaintiff would suffer extreme prejudice if not allowed to submit the evidence, while the defendant would not be prejudiced by its admission. The magistrate also failed to adequately address the need for finality i…
Source excerpt
Diamond Core Resources (Pty) Ltd v River Corporate Finance (Pty) Ltd (642/2009) [2009] ZANCHC 78 (11 December 2009)
Leave to appeal was refused in a liquidation matter, and the court ordered punitive costs de bonis propriis against the instructing attorney.
Monyeki and Another v Regional Land Claims Commission and Another (LCC18/2004) [2008] ZALCC 6 (1 January 2008)
The court held that the refusal of a postponement and the refusal to re-open the plaintiffs' case were not appealable judgments or orders. The plaintiffs failed to comply with procedural requirements, including submitting a formal application and a summary of the proposed evidence. The decision did not have a final or definitive effect on the rights of the parties nor did it dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The authorities cited establish that such rulings are interlocutory and not susceptible to appeal. The application for leave to appeal had no reasonable prospects of…
Source excerpt
Explore more
