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
Ramatsetse-Moloi v Shiremane and Others (2025-110223) [2025] ZAGPPHC 770 (1 August 2025)
The High Court struck an urgent application from the roll because the applicant failed to prove urgency, with unresolved executorship and marriage issues left for later proceedings.
Dell v Demajistre and Others (Reasons) (A187/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 206 (12 March 2025)
The High Court held that an order striking a matter from the roll is not final and therefore not appealable. The appeal was not entertained and the matter was removed from the roll.
Ncongwane v Teixeira and Others (2024/056876) [2025] ZAGPJHC 712 (10 March 2025)
The High Court struck an application from the roll for failure to comply with procedural requirements for opposed motion enrolment and ordered the applicant to pay costs.
Matlala and Another v Head of Prison Leeuwkop Maximum Prison and Others (2024/059539) [2024] ZAGPJHC 711 (15 July 2024)
The High Court struck an urgent prison-transfer review application from the roll for lack of urgency, holding that the applicants failed to meet Rule 6(12)(b).
South African Municipal Workers Union obo Members v Mogalakwena Municipality and Others (J 279/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 173 (9 June 2023)
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the order striking the matter from the roll was not final or appealable, and the applicants had no prospects of success.
Jojwana v Regional Court Magistrate and Another (5435/17) [2018] ZAECMHC 54; 2019 (6) SA 524 (ECM) (11 September 2018)
The High Court held that the striking of the matter from the roll by the magistrate did not terminate the proceedings but merely suspended them, allowing for reinstatement upon proper application. The magistrate did not exceed his powers, as the removal and striking from the roll are implied in Rule 31 of the magistrates' court rules, and the applicant was not entitled to unilaterally remove the matter without consent or leave of the court. The applicant failed to attend court or tender costs, despite being forewarned, and was not prejudiced by the costs order made in his absence. The applica…
Source excerpt
OBG Group (Pty) Ltd v More And More Chickens CC T/A OBC Louis Trichardt (52583/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 296 (12 January 2010)
The High Court struck an urgent ejectment application from the roll after finding that the applicant had delayed too long and urgency had passed.
Concrete Factory BK en Anders v Ehlers en Anders (13814/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 268 (7 August 2009)
The court found that the applicants failed to comply with the strict procedural requirements for urgent applications in the North Gauteng High Court. The application was set down on a Monday, contrary to established practice, and the respondents were not afforded reasonable time to prepare and file opposing affidavits. The founding papers did not provide any motivation for deviation from the prescribed procedures. The court held that condoning such conduct would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the integrity of urgent application procedures. Furthermore, the matter did not warrant imme…
Source excerpt
Indawo Cape (Pty) Ltd v South African National Road Agency Ltd (16463/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 281 (31 October 2008)
The court dismissed an urgent application re-enrolled after it had already been struck from the roll for lack of urgency, awarding attorney-and-client costs.
Napier v Tsaperas (225/94) [1995] ZASCA 1; [1995] 2 All SA 262 (A) (23 February 1995)
The appeal was struck from the roll because the record was lodged late and no condonation application was filed. The court ordered attorney-and-client costs against the appellant and his attorney.
Explore more
