Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
L.M obo L[...] and L.M v Road Accident Fund (43630/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 761 (22 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed a strike-out application but upheld a Rule 30 challenge, finding a supplementary notice of motion irregular and allowing an affidavit in response to new matter.
MEC for Agriculture, Environmental Affairs, Rural Development and Land Reform (Northern Cape) and Another v Diedericks (295/2023) [2025] ZANCHC 4 (24 January 2025)
The court found that, except for one passage, the respondents failed to demonstrate any material prejudice resulting from the inclusion of the challenged passages and annexures in the replying affidavit. The repetition was justified due to the respondents' blanket denial of the founding affidavit, and the new evidence and expert opinions were responsive to the case made out in the answering affidavits. The Deloitte report was based on data for which the Minister was responsible, and the respondents did not engage with its accuracy. Legal arguments involving constitutional issues were properly…
Source excerpt
Hotazel Developments (Pty) Ltd v Mnisi and Others (1024/2020) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 20 (9 June 2021)
The court found that the applicant had locus standi, as ownership and control of the property were sufficiently established. The first respondent and others were not occupiers as defined in PIE, based on their own admissions and a previous court order. The previous order interdicts the respondents from occupying or entering the property, and their continued occupation is in clear defiance of that order. The PIE defence was rejected, as the respondents did not qualify for its protection. The Rule 6(15) striking out application was dismissed as the challenged material was relevant and no prejud…
Source excerpt
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Napoleon and Others (3847/2015) [2019] ZAECGHC 119 (28 November 2019)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out parts of a supplementary answering affidavit, finding no irrelevance or prejudice under rule 6(15).
Snap-On Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Joubert and Others (41993/2012A) [2015] ZAGPPHC 819 (7 December 2015)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 6(15) strike-out application because the respondents did not show that the impugned material would prejudice them in the litigation.
Sishen Iron Ore Company (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (28980/10) [2012] ZAGPPHC 2 (3 February 2012)
High Court strike-out application dismissed. The court held that Sishen had not shown prejudice, and that disputed affidavit material was relevant to the issues.
Explore more
