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
C.R.W v L.M.W and Another (12866/2014) [2025] ZAWCHC 279 (2 July 2025)
The High Court refused a stay of execution pending rescission and granted interim vexatious-litigant relief and security for costs against the applicant.
Sibanye Still Water N.O and Others v Xinshe (M98/2022) [2025] ZANWHC 102 (17 June 2025)
The High Court held that a request for written reasons was filed late under Rule 49(1)(c) and could not be entertained without consent or condonation.
Gauteng Department of Community Safety v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (2025/054448) [2025] ZALCJHB 204 (30 May 2025)
The court found that the applicant had established urgency due to the sheriff's attachment of assets and the imminent risk of sale. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied, as the applicant demonstrated a prima facie right and irreparable harm if the assets were sold before the review application was determined. The court exercised its discretion under section 145(3) of the Labour Relations Act to stay the enforcement of the arbitration award pending the outcome of the review. Regarding security for costs, the court held that the assets listed in the inventory would serve as…
Source excerpt
Mokoena v Dinkebogile Transport Services (Reasons) (CIV APP RC 09/2020) [2025] ZANWHC 88 (27 May 2025)
The respondent failed to comply with multiple procedural requirements, including late filing of the notice of appeal, failure to provide security for costs, and submission of an incomplete record. No application for condonation was made for the incomplete record, nor was there any application to dispense with security for costs. The respondent did not take proper procedural steps to challenge the alleged irregularity of the application to strike, such as filing a notice under rule 30. The cumulative effect of these failures constituted a flagrant disregard for the rules of court. The appeal w…
Source excerpt
Makhubele and Another v University of the Witwatersrand and Another (2024/028930) [2025] ZAGPJHC 590 (15 May 2025)
The court found that the application, styled as a reconsideration, was in fact a hybrid of multiple applications—reconsideration, rescission, review, and section 18 relief—none of which were competent or compliant with the Rules of Court. The reconsideration application did not meet the requirements of rule 6(12)(c), as the prior order was made in the presence of the applicants and opposed by the respondents. The rescission application lacked grounds, and the review application did not pass the threshold for review. The repeated institution of similar applications, all relating to the same un…
Source excerpt
Steinman and Others v NSPCA and Others (Reasons) (CIV APP FC29/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 80 (8 May 2025)
The full court struck the appeal off the roll for non-compliance with Rule 49, citing missing power of attorney and security for costs.
Lekalakala v Transnet SOC Limited and Others (19753/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 340 (3 April 2025)
The court found that the respondent's repeated institution of recission applications on substantially the same grounds, his failure to provide a valid address for execution of cost orders, and his evasive conduct amounted to vexatious litigation and an abuse of process. The applicants, as a public entity, are entitled to protection from such conduct, especially where public funds are at stake. The respondent's explanations for delay and change of address were unconvincing, and his attorneys' lack of cooperation further prejudiced the applicants. The court exercised its discretion to order sec…
Source excerpt
Mabyane v Moerane and Another (CIV APP MG28/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 68 (31 March 2025)
The High Court removed a civil appeal from the roll because the record was incomplete and illegible, and the appellant had not provided security for costs.
Louw v Superdoc One CC (5177/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 89 (6 March 2025)
The court held that rule 47 does not permit striking out a defence to a counterclaim for failure to furnish security for costs.
Pieters N.O v Pienaar and Others (15691/2023 ; 16769/2023 ; 13665/2016) [2025] ZAWCHC 70; [2025] 3 All SA 224 (WCC) (27 February 2025)
The court declared Deon Johan Pienaar a vexatious litigant, barred further steps without leave, and provisionally sequestrated his estate after finding persistent abuse of process.
Explore more
