South Africa Case Law

Bunze v S (CA19/2022)

Bunze v S (CA19/2022) [2024] ZANWHC 276 (5 November 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 19/2022

Judges

Petersen, Reddy

The Full Bench held that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to re-enrol the appeal within ten days after it was struck from the roll on 26 May 2023, as stipulated by Rule 67(5A)(a)(ii) of the Magistrates' Court Rules. The subsequent actions by the respondent in seeking new hearing dates did not cure this defect, nor did they revive the lapsed appeal. In the absence of a substantive application for reinstatement and condonation for the period after the striking-off order, there was no appeal properly before the court. The court emphasized that strict compliance with…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Reinstatement Of Appeal
• Criminal Appeal Procedure
• Striking Off Order
• Mandatory Timelines

South African Legal Practice Council v Bobotyana (2259/2019)

South African Legal Practice Council v Bobotyana (2259/2019) [2020] ZAECGHC 114; [2020] 4 All SA 827 (ECG) (13 October 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

2259/2019

Judges

P N Kroon, NG Beshe

The court struck an attorney from the roll after finding he misappropriated over R2 million in trust money under false pretences and showed no remorse.

• Legal Practitioners Misconduct
• Misappropriation Of Trust Funds
• Fit And Proper Person Test
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Legal Practice Act
• Striking Off Order

Productivity SA v Jabu’s concept Warehouse and Franktalk Communication as a joint Venture Consortium and Another (26040/13)

Productivity SA v Jabu’s concept Warehouse and Franktalk Communication as a joint Venture Consortium and Another (26040/13) [2013] ZAGPJHC 178 (24 July 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26040/13

Judge

FHD Van Oosten

The court held that the striking-off order of the Full Court resulted in the lapsing of the appeal and the suspension of its staying effect. The applicant's contention that the appeal remained pending was rejected, as the legal position is clear that a lapsed appeal requires an application for reinstatement and condonation for late filing. The applicant's attempt to seek a postponement was inconsistent with the urgency claimed and the case made out in its papers. The application was therefore dismissed as it could not succeed on the facts and legal principles applicable.

Source excerpt

• Striking Off Order
• Appeal Lapsing
• Stay Of Execution
• Urgent Interdict