South Africa Case Law

BMW South Africa (Pty) Ltd v William and Another (31587/21)

BMW South Africa (Pty) Ltd v William and Another (31587/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 450 (27 June 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31587/21

Judge

Mbongwe

The court found that the applicant’s denial of service by the Sheriff was supported by unchallenged evidence, including CCTV footage, occurrence books, and security staff interviews. The Sheriff failed to respond to the allegations despite being joined as a party. The return of service was thus rebutted. Service by email was also irregular, as there was no agreement between the parties and the attorneys copied had not been instructed. The court held that the applicant did not take a further step in the proceedings by serving a notice in terms of Rule 23(1), as this raised a distinct cause of…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Return Of Service
• Substituted Service
• Prescription
• Rule 4 Uniform Rules

Phaladi v Polokwane Local Municipality (7517/2020)

Phaladi v Polokwane Local Municipality (7517/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 61 (13 September 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

7517/2020

Judge

Kganyago

The High Court held that an urgent application served by the applicant’s attorney, with an affidavit proving service, satisfied Rule 4 and dismissed the municipality’s procedural objection.

• Service Of Process
• Urgent Application
• Rule 4 Uniform Rules
• Condonation For Non Compliance
• Service-of-process
• Urgent-applications

Minister of Police, Libode and Another v Reformed Presbyterian Church in South Africa; In re: Reformed Presbytarian Church in South Africa v Minister of Police and Another (3642/2015)

Minister of Police, Libode and Another v Reformed Presbyterian Church in South Africa; In re: Reformed Presbytarian Church in South Africa v Minister of Police and Another (3642/2015) [2016] ZAECMHC 22 (24 May 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3642/2015

Judge

Mgxaji

The court found that service of the main application on the 2nd applicant was not proper, as the Station Commissioner, Libode, does not qualify as an 'Administrator' for purposes of Rule 4(9) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Service should have been effected personally and not at the State Attorney's office. The absence of proper service rendered the order of 12 January 2016 invalid and rescindable under Rule 31(2)(b). Furthermore, the order directing police to conduct thorough investigations into contempt of court was erroneously granted, as the legal principles governing contempt in the Magis…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Service Of Process
• Default Judgment
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Rule 4 Uniform Rules