South Africa Case Law

Mhlongo v Trustees for the Time Being of the Peter Neve Trust MT 1266/1996 being: Neves and Others (191/2024)

Mhlongo v Trustees for the Time Being of the Peter Neve Trust MT 1266/1996 being: Neves and Others (191/2024) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 65 (16 September 2024)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

191/2024

Judge

TV Ratshibvumo

The High Court struck an urgent reconsideration application off the roll because it duplicated an earlier application struck for lack of urgency and raised no new developments.

• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration
• Urgent Interdict
• Striking Off Roll
• Costs Order
• Rule-6-12-c-reconsideration
• Urgent-applications

Moagi and Others v Department of Education and Training (North West Province) and Another

Moagi and Others v Department of Education and Training (North West Province) and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 259; 60177/2020 (19 April 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

60177/2020

Judge

Mncube

The court held that Rule 6(12)(c) applies to orders granted in the absence of a party, regardless of whether notice was given, provided the order was made urgently and the party did not appear. The applicants were absent when the orders were granted, satisfying the jurisdictional facts for reconsideration. However, on the merits, the applicants failed to demonstrate that the orders should be reconsidered; the respondents established a clear right, injury, and lack of alternative remedies for the interdict, and proved contempt of court beyond reasonable doubt. The counter-application under Rul…

Source excerpt

• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Final Interdict
• Contempt Of Court

Interwaste (PTY) Ltd and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (24005/2022)

Interwaste (PTY) Ltd and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (24005/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 607 (26 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

24005/2022

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court set aside an ex parte anti-dissipation order against the tenth and thirteenth respondents, finding no proven link between their accounts and stolen funds.

• Anti Dissipation Order
• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration
• Quasi Vindicatory Claim
• Interdict
• Fraudulent Transfer
• Anti-dissipation-order

Madavanhu and Others v 1st Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd and Another (7134/2017)

Madavanhu and Others v 1st Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd and Another (7134/2017) [2021] ZALMPPHC 56 (2 July 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

7134/2017

Judge

M V Semenya

The court held that the interim order granted on 31 October 2017 was intended to be effective for a period of 24 months only, as reflected in the relief sought in Part B of the main application. Since Part B was never heard and the 24-month period has expired, the interim order, including the costs order, has lapsed and is no longer of force or effect. The applicants' physical presence in court without filing opposing papers did not constitute proper presence for the purposes of Rule 6(12)(c), and thus the reconsideration application was competent. The respondents are not entitled to tax the…

Source excerpt

• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration
• Interim Interdict
• Costs Order
• Default Judgment

Ex parte: National Director of Public Prosecutions (1540/2018)

Ex parte: National Director of Public Prosecutions (1540/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 100 (12 June 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1540/2018

Judge

J P Daffue

The court found that the NDPP failed to establish reasonable grounds that the funds preserved in Baroda's Nedbank account were the proceeds of unlawful activities. The evidence showed no direct link between the alleged proceeds and the preserved funds, as the account was a pool account containing deposits from various customers. The principles of commixtio and the bank/customer relationship dictate that once funds are deposited, they lose individual identity and become the property of the bank. The NDPP did not seek to preserve Estina's personal right in its account but rather Baroda's Nedban…

Source excerpt

• Preservation Order
• Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities
• Bank Customer Relationship
• Commixtio
• Money Laundering
• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration

Crots v Hannes Muller Voerkraal and Others (4540/2015)

Crots v Hannes Muller Voerkraal and Others (4540/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 188 (14 October 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4540/2015

Judge

Bokwa, AJ

The High Court set aside an ex parte interim anti-dissipation order, finding the applicant had not shown a clear right or identified an earmarked fund.

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Interim Interdict
• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration
• Clear Right Requirement
• Anti-dissipation-interdict
• Urgent-application

Woodglaze Trading (Pty) Ltd v Persons who are presently occupying the Hilldale Complex situated at Castlehill Drive and Others (13019/14)

Woodglaze Trading (Pty) Ltd v Persons who are presently occupying the Hilldale Complex situated at Castlehill Drive and Others (13019/14) [2015] ZAKZDHC 9 (18 February 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

13019/14

Judge

Lopes

The High Court dismissed an urgent reconsideration bid against an eviction order, holding the occupiers failed to impeach the sheriff’s returns of service.

• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration
• Eviction Proceedings
• Service Of Process
• Returns Of Service
• Unlawful Occupation
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa v Sooliman (2013/21466)

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa v Sooliman (2013/21466) [2013] ZAGPJHC 179; 2013 (5) SA 603 (GSJ) (18 July 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/21466

Judge

R Sutherland

The court held that where a respondent invokes Rule 6(12)(c) and files an answering affidavit, the applicant is entitled to file a reply, provided it does not introduce new matter illegitimately. The purpose of reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c) is to ensure full ventilation of the dispute as if the initial hearing had complied with the audi alterem partem principle. The court found that IDC had locus standi to complain of alleged fraud regarding HMP’s assets due to its security interests and ongoing debtor relationship. The respondents’ challenges to the evidence and allegations of non-disc…

Source excerpt

• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration
• Ex Parte Interdict
• Locus Standi
• Fraud And Misappropriation
• Balance Of Convenience

Cloete NO and Others v Basson and Others (61907/09)

Cloete NO and Others v Basson and Others (61907/09) [2010] ZAGPJHC 87 (4 October 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

61907/09

Judge

Goodey AJ

High Court reconsidered an ex parte urgent order and amended it to soften asset restraints, allowing reasonable living, legal, and business expenses.

• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration
• Mareva Injunction
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Harmful Business Practices
• Banking Regulation
• Rule-6-12-c-reconsideration

Mbashe Local Municipality and Others v Nyubuse (CA 24/08)

Mbashe Local Municipality and Others v Nyubuse (CA 24/08) [2008] ZAECHC 79; (2008) 29 ILJ 2147 (E) (12 June 2008)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

CA 24/08

Judges

D. Chetty, S.M. Miller, Z.M. Nhlangulela

The appeal succeeded because the High Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the employment dispute, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Labour Relations Act. The conduct of the municipality in withholding the respondent's salary did not constitute administrative action under section 33 of the Constitution or PAJA. Even if jurisdiction existed, the application should have been dismissed for lack of urgency and the existence of a serious dispute of fact. The court a quo erred in finding the appellants in contempt, as their conduct was not wilful or mala…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Administrative Action
• Contempt Of Court
• Urgency In Applications
• No Work No Pay
• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration