South Africa Case Law

Uniqon Wonings (Pty) Limited v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (22726/2013)

Uniqon Wonings (Pty) Limited v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (22726/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 471 (10 July 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22726/2013

Judge

P.Z. Ebersohn

The High Court granted a Rule 49(11) application for immediate execution of its earlier order pending appeal, and awarded costs, including two counsel.

• Rule 49 11 Execution Pending Appeal
• Clearance Certificates
• Condonation Of Late Appeal
• Semi Urgent Application
• Rule-49-11
• Execution-pending-appeal

Silvermoon Investments 278 CC v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd (2142/2012)

Silvermoon Investments 278 CC v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd (2142/2012) [2013] ZAECGHC 34 (5 April 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

2142/2012

Judge

J M Roberson

The court dealt with costs after an execution order and related appeal steps. It held the leave-to-appeal challenge was not irregular, and made split costs orders.

• Rule 49 11 Execution Pending Appeal
• In Duplum Rule
• Mortgage Bond Cancellation
• Costs Award
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Rule-49-11

Trigger Reaction Security Service v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (48493/12)

Trigger Reaction Security Service v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (48493/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 356 (11 December 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

48493/12

Judge

Tlhapi V V

The court dismissed a security-for-costs application but granted leave to execute an interim order pending appeal under Rule 49(11).

• Security For Costs
• Close Corporations Act
• Rule 49 11 Execution Pending Appeal
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Courts
• Security-for-costs
• Rule-49-11

Reunert Ltd v Holdsworth and Another (17335/2012)

Reunert Ltd v Holdsworth and Another (17335/2012) [2012] ZAGPPHC 335 (10 December 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

17335/2012

Judge

Baqwa

The High Court granted a Rule 49(11) application, allowing an interdict order to operate pending appeal because the applicant faced likely ongoing commercial harm.

• Interdict
• Rule 49 11 Execution Pending Appeal
• Confidential Information
• Unlawful Competition
• Restraint Of Trade
• Rule-49-11

Winterbreeze Trading 158 Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Smith and Another (15266/2010)

Winterbreeze Trading 158 Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Smith and Another (15266/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 46 (15 June 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

15266/2010

Judge

P C Van der Byl

The application for recusal was dismissed as there was no factual basis for perceived bias; the only discussion with the applicants' attorney concerned scheduling, not the merits. The Rule 49(11) application was found to be urgent and properly brought as an interlocutory application. The court determined that the applicants would suffer greater irreparable harm if the order was suspended, including loss of control over their business and risk of cancellation of the sale agreement, while the respondents would suffer minimal prejudice as they were not deprived of accommodation and had no legal…

Source excerpt

• Rule 49 11 Execution Pending Appeal
• Interdict
• Recusal Of Judge
• Urgent Application
• Shareholder Rights

FHP Managers (PTY) Ltd v Theron N.O. and Others (13608/98)

FHP Managers (PTY) Ltd v Theron N.O. and Others (13608/98) [2001] ZAWCHC 1 (13 July 2001)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13608/98

Judge

Van Reenen

High Court application to execute a prior order pending appeal was refused. The court found no sufficient proof of irreparable harm and made no costs order.

• Rule 49 11 Execution Pending Appeal
• Sectional Title Sale
• Occupational Interest
• Security De Restituendo
• Execution-pending-appeal
• Rule-49-11