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
S v Zilo (Review) (CA&R91/2025) [2025] ZAECMKHC 56 (22 July 2025)
The High Court set aside criminal proceedings after finding the accused was represented by an attorney with no right of appearance, rendering the trial a nullity.
Nedbank Limited v Civil Home Construction Group CC and Others (004671/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 578 (6 June 2025)
The High Court held that Nedbank failed to comply with Rule 18(1) when its summons was signed by an unauthorised person, and awarded costs to the applicants.
S v Philander and Others (Special Review) (29/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 291 (6 June 2025)
The High Court held that while Scott's appearance as a struck-off advocate was irregular and constituted a criminal offence under the Legal Practice Act, the Legislature did not intend such irregularity to render proceedings a nullity. The correct approach is to assess whether the irregularity resulted in specific prejudice or a gross deficiency affecting the fairness of the trial. In all five cases, there was no evidence that Scott's conduct compromised the integrity of the proceedings or the accused's fair trial rights. The accused had freely chosen Scott, and the records showed that he dis…
Source excerpt
Ditiro Works (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (B39602/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 490 (14 May 2025)
The court found that the delivery of the new combined summons under the same case number did not constitute an irregular step as pleaded by the defendants. The striking out of a combined summons for non-compliance with rule 18 does not terminate the action but merely destroys the defective pleading, allowing the plaintiff to amend or deliver a new pleading. The court order striking out the original summons did not intend to end the action, as evidenced by the costs order. The defendants' argument that the claim was prescribed if a new case number was used was rejected, as prescription would n…
Source excerpt
S v King (Review) (CA&R 54/2025) [2025] ZAECMKHC 40; 2025 (2) SACR 217 (ECMk) (15 April 2025)
The High Court set aside criminal proceedings as a nullity because the accused was represented by an admitted but unenrolled advocate lacking a right of appearance.
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Luvhomba Financial Services CC (33219/2015) [2025] ZAGPPHC 394 (11 April 2025)
Summary judgment was granted to Standard Bank against a close corporation on a home loan debt, with the property declared executable and costs awarded.
K2012020306 (Pty) Ltd and Another v De Wet and Others (2022/009661) [2025] ZAGPJHC 292 (18 March 2025)
The court found that Rule 18(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court does not require an attorney with Right of Appearance in the High Court to sign pleadings twice. The defendants' plea was valid and effective, and no condonation was required for its late filing. The plaintiffs' application to strike out was dismissed as non-compliance with directives did not cause prejudice, and both parties sought condonation for procedural irregularities. Claims in the first action based on non-payment and success in arbitration were abandoned, but claims for misappropriation of trust funds, delict, and induceme…
Source excerpt
G.P.N v C.M.N (Review) (HC 07/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 56 (17 March 2025)
The court found that Mr Matheolwane, who appeared for the respondent in the maintenance enquiry, did not possess a valid right of appearance as required by the Legal Practice Act. His participation constituted a gross irregularity in terms of section 22(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act. This irregularity infringed the respondent’s constitutional right to a fair hearing, as only admitted and enrolled legal practitioners may represent parties in court. The maintenance proceedings and interim order were therefore invalid and had to be set aside. The matter was remitted for rehearing before anoth…
Source excerpt
Ncongwane v Teixeira and Others (2024/056876) [2025] ZAGPJHC 712 (10 March 2025)
The High Court struck an application from the roll for failure to comply with procedural requirements for opposed motion enrolment and ordered the applicant to pay costs.
Platinum Wheels (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission and Another (612/2023) [2024] ZASCA 163; 2025 (3) SA 459 (SCA) (29 November 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a struck-off attorney’s appearance in the High Court was a serious fraud on the administration of justice, and remitted the consumer matter for rehearing.
Explore more
