Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2023] ZAGPJHC 1487

Tshenodi and Others v Road Accident Fund (2019/11156; 2020/05922; 2019/28478)

Tshenodi and Others v Road Accident Fund (2019/11156; 2020/05922; 2019/28478) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1487 (17 January 2023)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2019/11156; 2020/05922; 2019/28478
Judge
Thupaatlase

The court found that in all three matters, the respondent failed to comply with clear and specific court orders compelling procedural steps under the Uniform Rules, including arranging medico-legal examinations, delivering notices in terms of Rule 36, and attending pre-trial conferences. The respondent's reliance on Legaole Kagiso Sonnyboy v RAF was misplaced, as the facts were distinguishable and did not address the respondent's failure to comply with direct court orders. The court held that Rule 30A was applicable, as the orders were granted by the court and the respondent's non-compliance…

Source excerpt

  • Rule 30a Non Compliance
  • Strike Out Defence
  • Rule 36 Medico Legal Experts
  • Pre Trial Conference
  • Discovery And Inspection
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2016] ZASCA 52

Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Tembop Recovery CC and Others (006/2015)

Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Tembop Recovery CC and Others (006/2015) [2016] ZASCA 52 (1 April 2016)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
006/2015
Judges
Leach, Saldulker, Dambuza, Mathopo, Baartman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in striking out the appellants' defence to the main application without first ordering compliance with the discovery request under rule 35(12) and (13). The court found that the interests of justice, policy, and public considerations required a balanced approach, especially where criminal proceedings were pending. The seized items formed part of the State's case in the criminal trial, and their premature return would undermine the prosecution. The court ruled that the proper procedure was to order compliance with the discovery request…

Source excerpt

  • Uniform Rules Of Court
  • Strike Out Defence
  • Search And Seizure
  • Discovery In Motion Proceedings
  • Condonation
  • Civil Declaratory Orders Affecting Criminal Proceedings
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.