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
Pather v S (1490/24P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 30 (28 March 2024)
The High Court refused a postponement and dismissed an application to extend bail beyond earlier consent orders, holding that the relief would create conflicting orders.
Road Accident Fund v Homes (37164/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 754 (25 January 2024)
The Court found that the applicant was aware of the trial date, had received all relevant documentation, and chose not to participate in the proceedings, resulting in a default judgment. The applicant's explanation for its absence was inadequate, amounting to wilful default or gross negligence. The Court held that Rule 42(1)(a) was not applicable as the judgment was not erroneously granted, and the requirements for rescission under common law were not satisfied due to the lack of a bona fide defence and a reasonable explanation for default. The argument based on Section 173 of the Constitutio…
Source excerpt
Kgentlengrivier Local Municipality v Bertorbrite (Pty) Ltd and Another (UM118/2023) [2023] ZANWHC 66 (2 June 2023)
The High Court struck an urgent stay application from the roll, finding the municipality’s urgency was self-created and unsupported by verified facts.
Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development, Gauteng v DZ obo WZ (CCT20/17) [2017] ZACC 37; 2017 (12) BCLR 1528 (CC); 2018 (1) SA 335 (CC) (31 October 2017)
The Constitutional Court held that the 'once and for all' rule in South African law requires that all damages arising from a single cause of action be claimed and determined in one action, and that the court is obliged to award these damages in a lump sum. The rule is intended to prevent multiplicity of actions and ensure finality. The Court found that the Gauteng MEC's proposal for direct payment to service providers or periodic payments was not supported by the current common law, and no sufficient factual basis was presented to justify development of the law in this instance. The Court emp…
Source excerpt
Kloof Investment 2004 CC v Garry Isaacs t/a Build-O-Rama Builders Merchants (23305/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 552 (12 November 2010)
The High Court held that a late request for reasons was out of time and that the urgency ruling was a procedural, non-appealable decision.
National Police Services Union and Others v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (CCT21/00) [2000] ZACC 15; 2000 (4) SA 1110 ; 2001 (8) BCLR 775 (CC) (27 September 2000)
The Constitutional Court refused a postponement of an appeal hearing, struck the appeal from the roll, and held that applicants must show good cause and a full explanation.
Explore more
