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
Institute for Economic Justice and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (071891/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 369 (25 April 2025)
The High Court varied an earlier order under Rule 42(1)(b), expressly granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal and making costs costs in the appeal.
Gaqa and Others v Ingquza Hill Local Municipality and Others (3949/2024) [2025] ZAECMHC 27 (22 April 2025)
The applicants are affected by the order granted by Brooks J on 9 July 2024, even though they were not cited by name. The proper procedure for persons affected by an order granted in their absence is to apply for rescission or variation under Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The applicants did not seek to set aside the order, nor did they produce any decision by the municipality to implement the order that could be declared invalid. The relief sought in the urgent application, specifically the interim interdict and declaratory relief, cannot be granted in the absence of a proper a…
Source excerpt
Kunkoon NO and Others v Tsholoba (Pty) Ltd and Another (2022/26671) [2025] ZAGPJHC 247 (11 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against partial summary judgment in a lease dispute, with costs against the defendants.
State Attorney Pretoria and Others v Sampson (14785/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1276 (5 December 2024)
The High Court rescinded a default order upholding special pleas and exceptions because it was interlocutory, unclear, and impossible to implement.
Keele v Legal Practice Council and Others (1930/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 727 (2 August 2024)
The court set aside a taxed bill of costs, the consequent writ of execution, and the attachment of the applicant’s vehicle after finding Rule 30 process had been cut short.
Raleting and Another v Kose (2216/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 175 (6 June 2024)
The court found that the applicants' belief that no costs order would be granted against them does not constitute an error in the proceedings as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(a). The applicants were aware, through personal service of the notice of motion, that costs orders were sought. Their failure to oppose the application and their mistaken belief regarding costs do not amount to procedural error. The evidence before the original court justified the costs order, as the applicants' lack of cooperation necessitated the application. There was no error in the granting of the costs order, and the…
Source excerpt
T.K v N.M.P (81131/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 341 (5 April 2024)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 42 application to vary a divorce order to include sale of jointly owned property and occupational rent, finding the relief time-barred and substantively incompetent.
FNB v Govsons Investment (7057/21; 22035/15) [2024] ZAGPPHC 23 (15 January 2024)
The court dismissed two unopposed applications to vary earlier orders under Rule 42(1), finding no proven error, ambiguity, or common mistake.
Asphalt Services (Pty) Ltd v Tarspay CC (2011/26870 ; 2012/34486 ; A5061/2016) [2023] ZAGPJHC 920 (14 August 2023)
The High Court corrected a full court costs order under Rule 42(1)(b), holding that the order should reflect party and party costs, not punitive costs.
Masuluke and Another v Nedbank Limited [2023] ZAGPPHC 472; 724/2021 (12 June 2023)
The High Court dismissed a rescission application against summary judgment, finding Rule 31(5)(d) inapplicable and no basis under Rule 42(1) or the common law.
Explore more
