Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
4 court collections
Last checked

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAGPPHC 851

Mafuyeka and Another v Netshitomboni and Others (24398/22)

Mafuyeka and Another v Netshitomboni and Others (24398/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 851 (29 August 2024)

The court granted joinder of Space Securitization (Pty) Ltd and dismissed an application to compel security for costs, finding non-compliance with Rule 47(1).

  • Joinder Of Parties
  • Security For Costs
  • Rule 10
  • Rule 47
  • Partnership Dispute
  • Settlement Agreement
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2023] ZAGPJHC 470

CBZ Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holding SOC Ltd ; In Re Eskom Holding SOC Ltd v Zurich Insurance and Others (2022/5427)

CBZ Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holding SOC Ltd ; In Re Eskom Holding SOC Ltd v Zurich Insurance and Others (2022/5427) [2023] ZAGPJHC 470 (15 May 2023)

The High Court refused to remove CBZ Solutions as a defendant, finding it had a possible direct and substantial interest in the underlying dispute.

  • Joinder And Misjoinder
  • Contractual Guarantees
  • Performance Bonds
  • Retention Money
  • Rule 10
  • Rule 30
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2011] ZANWHC 54

Scheepers v Scheepers and Another (270/2008)

Scheepers v Scheepers and Another (270/2008) [2011] ZANWHC 54 (5 May 2011)

The North West High Court held that the first defendant must pay the second defendant’s costs after the plaintiff withdrew the claim against the second defendant.

  • Joinder Of Defendants
  • Costs Award
  • Withdrawal Of Action
  • Rule 10
  • Rule 41
  • Civil-procedure
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2007] ZAGPHC 382

Headland v Global East Resorts (Pty) Ltd and Others

Headland v Global East Resorts (Pty) Ltd and Others [2007] ZAGPHC 382; 10441/05 (9 May 2007)

The court held that Rule 10(5) does not permit separation of trial actions where joinder has occurred by court order, as opposed to joinder under Rule 10(1) or (2). This interpretation is supported by the judgment in De Polo and Another v Dreyer and others. Consequently, the applicant's application for separation was dismissed. Regarding the counter application for postponement, the court found that the applicant had not yet had a proper opportunity to respond to the counter application, as the replying affidavit did not address it directly. The applicant was therefore granted the opportunity…

  • Joinder Of Parties
  • Separation Of Trials
  • Rule 10
  • Postponement Of Trial
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.