South Africa Case Law

Rustenburg Local Municipality and Others v OS Holdings (Pty) Ltd (2358/2024)

Rustenburg Local Municipality and Others v OS Holdings (Pty) Ltd (2358/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 188 (17 July 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

2358/2024

Judge

S Mfenyana

The court found that the applicant failed to disclose material facts, specifically the answering affidavit from the previous urgent application where urgency was disputed and found lacking. The grounds for urgency in the present application were substantially the same as those previously rejected. The applicant did not participate in the second tender and thus lacked locus standi to interdict its adjudication. The court held that the ex parte order resulted in an injustice to the respondents and that the jurisdictional prerequisites for reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c) were satisfied. The…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Tender Process
• Ex Parte Orders
• Urgency In Applications
• Material Non Disclosure
• Rule 6 12 C
• Costs Orders

STS Tyres (Pty) Ltd v Bamboo Rock Plant (Pty) Ltd (2024-012285)

STS Tyres (Pty) Ltd v Bamboo Rock Plant (Pty) Ltd (2024-012285) [2024] ZAGPPHC 490 (30 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-012285

Judge

GN Moshoana

The court held that rule 6(12)(c) of the Uniform Rules of Court does not permit reconsideration of a provisional liquidation order granted in non-urgent proceedings. The applicant's reliance on this rule was misplaced, as the order was made in normal unopposed motion proceedings. The court further found that the making of a business rescue application under section 131(6) of the Companies Act, 2008 suspends only the process of realisation of assets in liquidation, not the granting of a winding-up order. The provisional liquidation order issued by Collis J was therefore not a nullity, even tho…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Liquidation
• Business Rescue
• Rule 6 12 C
• Section 131 Companies Act
• Abuse Of Process

Seketso and Others v South African National Civics Organisation and Others (7016/2019)

Seketso and Others v South African National Civics Organisation and Others (7016/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 373 (17 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

7016/2019

Judge

Wepener

The court held that the mere fact that an order was granted in the urgent court does not entitle the reconsideration application to be heard urgently. The applicants must independently establish that the reconsideration should be heard as a matter of urgency. The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency, as the issues raised are complex and involve disputes of fact that cannot be properly determined on the papers in an urgent application. The applicants can obtain redress in the ordinary course, and there is no justification for deviating from normal procedure.

Source excerpt

• Urgency In Applications
• Rule 6 12 C
• Reconsideration Of Orders

Lukhele v Letsoalo and Another (58803/21)

Lukhele v Letsoalo and Another (58803/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 834 (28 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

58803/21

Judge

Ceylon

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the court found no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reason to hear the appeal.

• Leave To Appeal
• Reasonable Prospects Of Success
• Costs Award
• Condonation
• Rule 6 12 C
• Leave-to-appeal

Lukhele v Letsoalo and Another (58803/21)

Lukhele v Letsoalo and Another (58803/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 580 (1 August 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

58803/21

Judge

Ceylon

High Court refused to reconsider an urgent order suspending termination of an RAF employment contract, finding the respondents’ absence was wilful.

• Rule 6 12 C
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Employment Contract Termination
• Condonation
• Locus Standi
• Rule-6-12-c

Chess South Africa and Others v Chess South Africa and Others (A5067/2019)

Chess South Africa and Others v Chess South Africa and Others (A5067/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 317 (10 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5067/2019

Judges

Malindi, Victor, Matthys

The Court found that the respondents were not absent in the sense required by Rule 6(12)(c) because they had received notice of the application and the relief sought was explicit and could be anticipated. Their decision not to oppose or attend the hearing, despite logistical and financial constraints, did not entitle them to rescission of the order. The Siwendu J order was properly implemented, the AGM and elections were valid, and the respondents' exclusion was a consequence of their failure to regularise their standing as required by the Chess SA report and the court order. The Court below…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Urgent Application
• Corporate Governance
• Notice And Absence
• Interdict
• Rule 6 12 C

New Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd v Tansnet SOC Ltd and Another (2018/16394; 2018/18284)

New Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd v Tansnet SOC Ltd and Another (2018/16394; 2018/18284) [2018] ZAGPJHC 431 (23 May 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/16394; 2018/18284

Judge

L R Adams

The court held that the applicant, not being a party to the guarantee, cannot prevent payment under the guarantee by the second respondent to the first respondent when all formal requirements are met and no fraud is alleged. The guarantee is autonomous and independent of the underlying contract, and disputes between the applicant and the first respondent do not affect the enforceability of the guarantee. The urgent interim interdict previously granted was not legally sustainable, and the applicant did not have a prima facie right to such relief. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 6…

Source excerpt

• Performance Guarantee
• Interim Interdict
• Rule 6 12 C
• Contractual Independence
• Fraud Exception

Wijnen and Another v Mohamed and Others (16043/13)

Wijnen and Another v Mohamed and Others (16043/13) [2014] ZAWCHC 138 (1 September 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16043/13

Judge

Masuku

The court found that while the ex parte application did not strictly comply with the requirements of urgency and procedural rules, the circumstances justified the urgent approach. The Respondents faced a real risk that their eviction application would be dismissed or postponed for lack of compliance with the PIE Act's notice requirements. The urgency arose from the need to serve the section 4(2) notice within the statutory period before the scheduled eviction hearing. The judge held that the wide judicial discretion to condone non-compliance with rules applied, and Bremridge AJ acted reasonab…

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Applications
• Urgent Applications
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Rule 6 12 C
• Eviction Proceedings

Radebe and Another v Apple Plastic (SA) (Pty) Ltd t/a Apple-Tec and Others (36535/14)

Radebe and Another v Apple Plastic (SA) (Pty) Ltd t/a Apple-Tec and Others (36535/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 550 (25 July 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

36535/14

Judge

P.M. Mabuse

The High Court dismissed a reconsideration application, finding the second applicant was properly served at its registered office and the first applicant knew of the urgent proceedings.

• Service Of Process
• Rule 6 12 C
• Registered Office
• Absence In Urgent Application
• Service-of-process
• Company-registered-office

Basil Read (Pty) Ltd v Nedbank Ltd and Another (8283/12)

Basil Read (Pty) Ltd v Nedbank Ltd and Another (8283/12) [2012] ZAGPJHC 101; 2012 (6) SA 514 (GSJ) (13 April 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

8283/12

Judge

Saldulker

The court found that the applicant failed to join the opposing party and did not provide for service of the application or order, despite the order directly affecting the opposing party's rights. The applicant's attempt to supplement its founding affidavit was refused, as the authorities do not permit supplementation in a Rule 6(12)(c) reconsideration by the applicant. The court held that the advance payment guarantees created independent contractual obligations for the bank to pay the beneficiary, and that disputes between the applicant's subsidiary and the opposing party were irrelevant to…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Documentary Credit
• Advance Payment Guarantee
• Rule 6 12 C
• Joinder Of Parties