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
Conradie v Botes N.O and Others (3303/2019) [2025] ZAWCHC 178 (25 April 2025)
The High Court held that the applicant must pay costs after withdrawing a long-pending urgent application and failing to show exceptional circumstances.
Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Lequbu Specialised Services (Pty) Ltd (3328/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 201 (4 July 2024)
The High Court dismissed the Municipality’s leave to appeal against an order making a settlement agreement an order of court, with costs.
Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Another v D and M Mabunda Incorporated and Others (658/2021) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 32 (22 May 2024)
The court found that the first settlement agreement, which formed the basis of the order granted on 3 August 2023, was not validly binding on the applicants because they were not parties to it and did not sign it, despite being required to make payment under its terms. The absence of the applicants' signature was not an error but a deliberate omission, and a party with substantial interest cannot be bound by an agreement they did not sign. Furthermore, the agreement sought to use funds ring-fenced for land development to pay legal fees, which is contrary to sections 42C and 42D of the Restitu…
Source excerpt
Sekgopo Traditional Council and Another v Chairperson of the Limpop Provincial Committee on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Others (7700/2019) [2024] ZALMPPHC 20 (6 February 2024)
The court found that the application for reinstatement was not urgent and did not meet the requirements of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The founding affidavit was not properly commissioned, rendering the application fatally defective. The applicants failed to provide cogent reasons for urgency or for why substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. Although Rule 41(1)(a) allows for withdrawal and possible reinstatement of proceedings before set down, the procedural defects and lack of urgency in this case precluded reinstatement. The application was struck off the rol…
Source excerpt
Ndamase v Commissioner: Private Inquiry into the affairs SNS Holdings (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others (2023/019694) [2024] ZAGPPHC 7 (17 January 2024)
The court held that the applicant's oral application for postponement, made from the bar and without affidavit, was justified in the circumstances. The pending Constitutional Court judgment was likely to have a direct bearing on the substantive issues in the present case, particularly regarding impartiality and procedural fairness in liquidation inquiries. The court found that the applicant acted bona fide and that the interests of justice required the postponement to ensure that the matter would be decided with the benefit of authoritative guidance. The absence of a formal affidavit did not,…
Source excerpt
Bokamoso Painting Firm (Pty) Ltd v Masilonyana Local Municipality (4396/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 313 (10 August 2023)
The court found that Rule 34 was inapplicable as the requirements for a valid offer and acceptance under the rule were not met, and the applicant did not accept the offer within the prescribed period. The correspondence between the parties did not constitute a single, clear, and unequivocal settlement agreement that brought finality to the dispute. The applicant's counter-offers altered the terms of the original proposal, and the Municipality's subsequent communications introduced further conditions and disputes. The court held that, while there was some certainty regarding the Municipality's…
Source excerpt
Apa Africa (Pty) Ltd v Melrose Arch Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (032219/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 510 (18 May 2023)
The High Court granted leave to withdraw an urgent application and ordered the applicant to pay costs on the attorney-and-client scale.
Dey Street Properties (Pty) Ltd v Salentias Travel and Hospitality CC (25461/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 462 (15 July 2021)
The court held the applicant could not unilaterally remove an urgent application from the roll and ordered the respondent to pay wasted costs.
Instika Yethu Local Municipality v Sipakisi-Olayi and Others (3303/2014) [2018] ZAECMHC 15 (27 February 2018)
The court held that the applicant's notice of withdrawal was invalid as it was delivered after the matter had been set down for hearing, without the respondents' consent or leave of the court, contrary to rule 41(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The court emphasized its discretion over proceedings once set down and rejected the applicant's attempt to withdraw the application from the bar, finding such conduct contrary to the Rules and prejudicial to the respondents, especially given the constitutional rights at stake. The main application therefore remained extant, and the related interlo…
Source excerpt
Nedbank Ltd In re:Van Rhyn v Steyn (2012/34535) [2013] ZAGPJHC 144 (13 June 2013)
High Court sequestration matter: the applicant failed to show that sequestration would benefit creditors, so the provisional order was discharged and costs followed.
Explore more
