South Africa Case Law

Special Investigating Unit v Municipality Employees Union Retirement Fund and Another (GP/10/2020)

Special Investigating Unit v Municipality Employees Union Retirement Fund and Another (GP/10/2020) [2022] ZAST 17 (14 July 2022)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP/10/2020

Judge

K Pillay

The court found that the applicant had instituted action by issuing the combined summons within the 30-day period prescribed by the Tribunal order, in line with established authorities that action is commenced by issue, not service, unless otherwise specified. The delay in service was adequately explained and not due to mala fide conduct. The applicant demonstrated good cause for condonation and revival of the rule nisi under Rule 27(2) of the Uniform Rules. The Tribunal's hybrid approach allows invocation of Uniform Rules where its own rules are silent. The matter is ready for hearing on con…

Source excerpt

• Revival Of Rule Nisi
• Extension Of Time
• Condonation
• Special Tribunal Rules
• Uniform Rules Of Court

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v Bachir and Others (87306/2014)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v Bachir and Others (87306/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 251 (22 April 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

87306/2014

Judge

E.M. Kubushi

The High Court refused to confirm SARS’s provisional tax preservation order, finding material non-disclosure in an ex parte revival application.

• Tax Preservation Order
• Ex Parte Applications
• Material Non Disclosure
• Revival Of Rule Nisi
• Duty Of Good Faith
• Tax-preservation-order

Nyandeni Local municipality v Ndamase and Others (1937/2012)

Nyandeni Local municipality v Ndamase and Others (1937/2012) [2013] ZAECMHC 38 (12 December 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1937/2012

Judge

Griffiths

The applicant remains the registered owner of the property and is entitled to protection of its rights until transfer to the Communal Property Association is effected. The respondents have not established any right to possession or allocation of the property. However, there is a material dispute of fact regarding whether the first, second, and fifth respondents were involved in the land invasion or allocation of plots. As this dispute cannot be resolved on the papers and no oral evidence was requested, the court must resolve the issue in favour of the respondents. The rule nisi is therefore c…

Source excerpt

• Interdict
• Revival Of Rule Nisi
• Locus Standi
• Title Deeds
• Land Invasion