South Africa Case Law

Burrows and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another (18796/2015)

Burrows and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another (18796/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 278 (13 August 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

18796/2015

Judge

S Yacoob

The court held that a leave-to-appeal application did not automatically invalidate transfer of property after a rescission dismissal; the transfer may still be set aside in a separate enquiry.

• Rescission Application
• Suspension Of Execution
• Transfer Of Immovable Property
• Leave To Appeal
• Rule 49 11
• Foreclosure

Labuschagne v Absa Bank Ltd (12349/2012)

Labuschagne v Absa Bank Ltd (12349/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 226 (24 April 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

12349/2012

Judge

Holland-Muter

The court found that Rule 49(11) of the Uniform Rules is applicable to rescission applications and suspends the execution of the order pending the finalization of the rescission application. The reasoning in Khoza and Peniel was preferred over United Reflective Converters, as irreparable harm could result if execution proceeds before the rescission application is heard. The merits of the rescission application were not adjudicated at this stage, and the interim interdict sought was rendered unnecessary by the operation of Rule 49(11).

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Suspension Of Execution
• Interim Interdict
• Parate Executie
• Rule 49 11

Jameya Investment Projects CC v Magistrate Naidoo and Others (467/2015)

Jameya Investment Projects CC v Magistrate Naidoo and Others (467/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 21 (10 February 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

467/2015

Judge

FHD Van Oosten

The High Court held that launching a rescission application under rule 49(11) automatically suspended liquidation proceedings, and granted a stay pending rescission.

• Urgent Applications
• Winding Up Orders
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 49 11
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Rule-49-11

Mokgatla and Others v South African Municipal Workers Union and Others (21815/2014)

Mokgatla and Others v South African Municipal Workers Union and Others (21815/2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 322 (12 November 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21815/2014

Judge

Vally

The court granted execution pending appeal, finding exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm because successful applicants had already lost election opportunities.

• Execution Pending Appeal
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Irreparable Harm
• Trade Union Membership
• Superior Courts Act
• Rule 49 11

L'Oreal South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Kilpatrick and Another (J1990/2014)

L'Oreal South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Kilpatrick and Another (J1990/2014) [2014] ZALCJHB 365; 2015 (6) SA 256 (LC); (2015) 36 ILJ 2617 (LC) (25 September 2014)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1990/2014

Judge

Snyman

The Labour Court held that Rule 49(11) of the High Court Rules applies in the Labour Court by virtue of Rule 11(3), allowing the court to direct that its order is not suspended pending appeal. The court found that the applicant demonstrated exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm, as the restraint period was limited and would likely expire before the appeal was heard, rendering the relief meaningless. The respondent's financial hardship was mitigated by the payment provisions of the restraint agreement and the possibility of alternative employment, and did not constitute irreparable ha…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Interim Interdict
• Leave To Appeal
• Rule 49 11
• Superior Courts Act Section 18
• Irreparable Harm

Letlapa and Another v Moloto and Others (25045/2013)

Letlapa and Another v Moloto and Others (25045/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 302 (28 August 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

25045/2013

Judge

Victor

High Court refused leave to execute a judgment pending appeal in an internal PAC dispute, finding no basis to displace the usual suspension of execution.

• Leave To Execute Pending Appeal
• Rule 49 11
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Irreparable Harm
• Internal Party Governance
• Leave-to-execute-pending-appeal

IMATU and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (44390/2014)

IMATU and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (44390/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 412 (27 June 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44390/2014

Judge

S Potterill

The court found that the respondents were not in contempt of court because the filing of a rescission application, in the absence of mala fides or evidence of delaying tactics, precludes a finding of wilful and mala fide contempt. The respondents had prepared an opposing affidavit and intended to oppose the urgent application, indicating good faith. The honest belief that non-compliance was justified due to the pending rescission application is incompatible with the intent required for contempt. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 49 11
• Urgent Interdict

Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development v Herman and Another (67151/2013)

Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development v Herman and Another (67151/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 485 (19 December 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

67151/2013

Judge

S P Mothle

The court granted leave to execute an earlier removal order against a sheriff pending appeal, finding no prospects of success and limited prejudice to the respondent.

• Leave To Execute
• Rule 49 11
• Sheriff Removal
• Costs Award
• Leave-to-execute
• Rule-49-11

Minister of Justice And Costitutional Development v Herman and Another (67151/2013)

Minister of Justice And Costitutional Development v Herman and Another (67151/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 378 (19 December 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

67151/2013

Judge

S P Mothle

The court granted leave to execute a judgment pending appeal, finding no prospects of success and no undue prejudice to the respondent.

• Leave To Execute Judgment
• Sheriff Removal
• Rule 49 11
• Costs Award
• Leave-to-execute
• Pending-appeal

Peniel Development (Pty) Ltd and Another v Pietersen and Others (34819/2013)

Peniel Development (Pty) Ltd and Another v Pietersen and Others (34819/2013) [2013] ZAGPJHC 298; 2014 (2) SA 503 (GSJ); [2014] 2 All SA 219 (GJ) (27 November 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

34819/2013

Judge

Vally

The court held that Rule 49(11) must be given its plain meaning: the filing of a rescission application suspends the operation and execution of the judgment unless the court orders otherwise. However, the respondents demonstrated that the applicants have no legal right to occupy the premises, are causing irreparable harm by remaining rent-free, and failed to dispute the factual allegations in the counter application. The interests of justice favour granting the respondents leave to execute the eviction order pending the outcome of the rescission application. The judgment of 11 July 2013 is no…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Eviction
• Default Judgment
• Rule 49 11
• Counter Application