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
Steenkamp v Coolag (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (17997/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 366 (12 November 2024)
Leave to appeal was refused in a restraint-of-trade dispute, and the court ordered immediate execution of the restraint pending any further appeal.
Caterpillar Financial Services of SA (Pty) Ltd v Mashele Projects and Services (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (5209/2023) [2024] ZAMPMHC 56 (2 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed Mashele Projects’ leave-to-appeal application and granted Caterpillar’s section 18(3) execution relief over six Caterpillar units.
Nene v District Municipality of Zululand and Others (332/2024P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 48 (21 June 2024)
The court granted section 18 relief, making reinstatement and salary orders immediately executable pending appeal after finding exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm.
N.L.R v M.I.R (16610/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 752 (30 June 2023)
Section 18 execution pending appeal refused because the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm to the respondent and children.
NEHAWU v Minister For The Public Service And Administration and Others (JA19/2023) [2023] ZALAC 7; [2023] 6 BLLR 487 (LAC); (2023) 44 ILJ 1207 (LAC) (13 March 2023)
The Labour Appeal Court found that NEHAWU's strike notice was unlawfully broad, including essential services employees and entities outside the bargaining unit, in breach of section 65(1)(d)(i) of the LRA. NEHAWU failed to take adequate steps to exclude these categories, resulting in exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm to the employer and the public. However, the Court held that the right to strike for non-essential service employees should not be eroded by a blanket interdict. The section 18 order was warranted only against NEHAWU members employed in essential services and at SASS…
Source excerpt
Myeni v Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse and Another (15996/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 56 (15 February 2021)
The court held that the appellant's failure to file the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal within the prescribed one-month period meant that there was no valid pending appeal or application as required by section 18(5) of the Superior Courts Act. The mere lodging of a condonation application for late filing does not suspend the operation and execution of the principal judgment. Consequently, the principal order declaring the appellant a delinquent director is final and executable, and the section 18(4) appeal against the execution order is not competent. The appeal…
Source excerpt
Murendi Properties and Building Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Trade and Industry and Another (7972/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 137 (9 May 2019)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient financial information to demonstrate that non-payment of the grant would result in the imminent demise of its business or irreparable harm. The applicant's reliance on existing employees and lack of clarity regarding its current financial position undermined its claim of exceptional circumstances. The court held that the facts did not meet the threshold required by section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act, and that the applicant could pursue the project if successful on appeal. Consequently, the application for execution of the o…
Source excerpt
Ragavan and Others v Klopper N.O. and Others (12897/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 230 (3 May 2018)
On an urgent section 18 appeal, the High Court refused leave to appeal against execution of an access order so business rescue practitioners could perform their duties.
Cedar Park Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd v Strawberry Worx Pop (Pty) Ltd (21068/2016, 21594/2016, 23878/2016, 18810/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 207 (1 August 2016)
The court found that Strawberry Worx Pop (SW) was unlawfully dispossessed of both the advertising space and signage by Cedar Park, and that SW regained possession of the site prior to service of the application for leave to appeal. Cedar Park's subsequent removal of replacement signage constituted a second spoliation. The spoliation order required Cedar Park to restore possession to SW, and Cedar Park's failure to comply amounted to contempt and precluded it from seeking eviction until possession was purged. The requirements for execution under section 18 of the Superior Courts Act were met,…
Source excerpt
Explore more
