South Africa Case Law

Spectrum (Pty) Ltd and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (28694/2020)

Spectrum (Pty) Ltd and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (28694/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 929 (17 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28694/2020

Judge

S McCafferty

The court held that the Applicants' failure to formally join the Second Respondent, Floyd Brink, to the contempt proceedings is fatal to the application against him. Citation alone, without a substantive joinder application and personal service of the order, does not suffice to make the Second Respondent a party to the contempt application. The court found that the Applicants did not effect personal service of the order on Brink, nor did they inform him in his personal capacity of the case he was to face. The authorities cited, including Diluculo, Matjhabeng, and Mjeni, establish that proper…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Contempt Of Court
• Rule 30a Application
• Municipal Manager Liability

Oramok (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (4968/2023)

Oramok (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (4968/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 282 (12 September 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4968/2023

Judge

MB Nemavhidi

The High Court held that a Rule 23(1) notice to except may be filed after a notice of bar and dismissed the Rule 30A application to set it aside.

• Rule 30a Application
• Notice Of Bar
• Exception Procedure
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Civil-procedure
• Rule-30a

Johester and Others v Road Accident Fund (2020/23383)

Johester and Others v Road Accident Fund (2020/23383) [2024] ZAGPJHC 574 (12 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/23383

Judge

B. Ford

The Court held that a party cannot be compelled to make an election to call expert witnesses or to comply with an undertaking in a pre-trial minute to call experts if it elects not to do so. Rule 36 does not impose a positive obligation to appoint experts, and non-compliance with such undertakings does not constitute non-compliance with the Rules justifying a striking out order under Rule 30A. The striking out of a defence is a drastic remedy and is only competent where expressly provided for in the Rules, such as Rule 21(4) and Rule 35(7). In the absence of such provision, less onerous remed…

Source excerpt

• Striking Out Of Defence
• Rule 30a Application
• Expert Evidence
• Pre Trial Undertakings
• Raf4 Form Compliance

Masithela N.O. and Others v Master of the High Court Pretoria and Others (60899/2021)

Masithela N.O. and Others v Master of the High Court Pretoria and Others (60899/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 287 (19 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

60899/2021

Judge

P J Vermeulen

The court found that the Winter Cereal Trust was incapacitated from acting in litigation due to having fewer than the minimum number of trustees required by its trust deed. The applicants, acting as trustees, could not lawfully institute proceedings or mandate attorneys without a properly constituted trustee body and valid resolutions. The purported authority given to Bokwa Law Incorporated was invalid, and the applicants failed to demonstrate compliance with the trust deed or joint action as required by law. The notice of substitution of parties was defective, as it was filed after the comme…

Source excerpt

• Trustee Authority
• Joinder And Substitution
• Rule 7 Challenge
• Rule 30a Application
• Trust Deed Interpretation
• Costs Orders

Mdaka v Total Energies Marketing South Africa (Pty) Limited and Others (2379/2023)

Mdaka v Total Energies Marketing South Africa (Pty) Limited and Others (2379/2023) [2024] ZAECMHC 11 (13 February 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2379/2023

Judge

Majiki

The court set aside an irregular Rule 30A application and a supplementary affidavit filed without leave, while reserving costs for the main case.

• Irregular Proceedings
• Supplementary Affidavit
• Rule 30a Application
• Setting Aside Documents
• Civil-procedure
• Rule-30a

Lot 38 Bizana Properties CC v Tiador 119 CC (in liquidation) and Others (2278/2022)

Lot 38 Bizana Properties CC v Tiador 119 CC (in liquidation) and Others (2278/2022) [2024] ZAECMKHC 3 (10 January 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

2278/2022

Judge

Rugunanan

The court found that the second respondent's affidavit did not comply with rule 35(3) because it failed to disclose whether the whereabouts of the requested documents were known, as required by the rule. The second respondent's assertion that the documents could not be located did not satisfy the obligation to state their whereabouts if known. Furthermore, correspondence indicated that the second respondent may have known the location of some documents but did not disclose this in its reply. The claim of privilege under the Protection of Personal Information Act was not properly substantiated…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 Compliance
• Rule 30a Application
• Affidavit Requirements

Matini v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Eastern Cape Province - Costs (169/2017)

Matini v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Eastern Cape Province - Costs (169/2017) [2023] ZAECBHC 31 (19 August 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

169/2017

Judge

Hartle

The High Court ordered the defendant to pay attorney-and-client costs for a Rule 30A application and party-and-party costs for removing applications from the roll.

• Costs Award
• Punitive Costs
• Case Management Directives
• Rule 30a Application
• Removal Of Application
• State Liability

Aviation Co-Ordination Services (Pty) Limited and Others v Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited and Others (22/20741)

Aviation Co-Ordination Services (Pty) Limited and Others v Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited and Others (22/20741) [2023] ZAGPJHC 778 (10 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22/20741

Judge

Dlamini

The court found that the letter dated 17 December 2021 from the first respondent did not constitute a refusal or termination decision capable of judicial review. The applicants continued to provide Hold Baggage Screening services after the letter, and no termination notice had been issued. The only relevant decision was the Board's resolution of 18 May 2023, which approved insourcing of HBS services subject to ministerial approval. As the applicants failed to prove the existence of a reviewable decision prior to this resolution, the court held that it could not compel the production of record…

Source excerpt

• Rule 30a Application
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Record Of Decision
• Public Procurement
• Onus Of Proof

Mofokeng v Standard Bank of South Africa (12998/2020)

Mofokeng v Standard Bank of South Africa (12998/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 49 (1 February 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

12998/2020

Judge

G Nel

Rule 30A discovery application dismissed where the applicant failed to justify going behind the respondent’s discovery affidavit and sought new relief in reply.

• Discovery Affidavit
• Rule 30a Application
• Rule 35 3 Notice
• Striking Out Defence
• Costs Order
• Civil-procedure

Kaap-Vaal Trust (Pty) Ltd v Speedy Brick & Sand CC (23143/2020)

Kaap-Vaal Trust (Pty) Ltd v Speedy Brick & Sand CC (23143/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 668 (18 October 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23143/2020

Judge

Collis

The High Court dismissed a Rule 30A application after finding that the challenge to an attorney’s authority under Rule 7 was brought too late and without condonation.

• Authority Of Attorney
• Rule 7 Uniform Rules
• Rule 30a Application
• Condonation
• Business Rescue Status
• Civil-procedure