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
4 court collections
Last checked

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Administrative Law [2025] ZAMPMBHC 40

Sibanyoni v Speaker of City of Mbombela and Others (2107/2025)

Sibanyoni v Speaker of City of Mbombela and Others (2107/2025) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 40 (13 May 2025)

The High Court struck an urgent application off the roll, finding the applicant failed to show explicit urgency or lack of substantial redress in due course.

  • Declaratory Relief
  • Abuse Of Public Power
  • Urgency In Motion Court
  • Substantial Redress
  • Costs Award
  • Urgency-in-motion-court
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2025] ZAGPPHC 273

Hlabangwane v University of Pretoria and Others (2025-028456)

Hlabangwane v University of Pretoria and Others (2025-028456) [2025] ZAGPPHC 273 (18 March 2025)

The High Court struck an urgent application by a University of Pretoria student seeking interim readmission pending review, finding the urgency self-created.

  • University Exclusion
  • Interim Interdict
  • Urgency In Motion Proceedings
  • Functus Officio
  • Substantial Redress
  • Review Of Administrative Action
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2025] ZAGPPHC 256

Khan v Khan (Ex tempore) (021816/2025)

Khan v Khan (Ex tempore) (021816/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 256 (24 February 2025)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for urgency as required by Rule 6(12). The urgency relied upon was self-created and not objectively justified. The applicant did not provide sufficient reasons to demonstrate that substantial redress could not be obtained at a hearing in due course. Consistency in applying the rules of court is essential for legal certainty. As the requirements for urgent relief were not satisfied, the application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

  • Rule 6 12 Urgency
  • Condonation
  • Service And Form Requirements
  • Substantial Redress
  • Self Created Urgency
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2025] ZAGPPHC 261

Edging Zone (Pty) Ltd (Ex Tempore) (024398/2024), Ex parte

Edging Zone (Pty) Ltd (Ex Tempore) (024398/2024), Ex parte [2025] ZAGPPHC 261 (24 February 2025)

The High Court struck an ex parte urgent application from the roll, finding the applicant failed to show genuine urgency under Uniform Rule 6(12).

  • Uniform Rule 6 12
  • Urgency Threshold
  • Substantial Redress
  • Self Created Urgency
  • Uniform-rule-6-12
  • Urgent-application
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2025] ZAGPPHC 82

Tsengwa v Exxaro Resources Limited (2024/148733)

Tsengwa v Exxaro Resources Limited (2024/148733) [2025] ZAGPPHC 82 (3 February 2025)

The High Court struck an urgent application from the roll, finding the applicant failed to show urgency, the delay was unexplained, and no personal harm was made out.

  • Urgent Application
  • Precautionary Suspension
  • Board Resolution Challenge
  • Substantial Redress
  • Rule 6 12
  • Urgent-application
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2025] ZANWHC 21

Letlojane v Ratlou Local Municipality and Others (6451/24)

Letlojane v Ratlou Local Municipality and Others (6451/24) [2025] ZANWHC 21 (3 February 2025)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish genuine urgency as required by Rule 6(12). The urgency was self-created because the applicant had a clear alternative remedy: the right to appeal or refer the dispute to the Bargaining Council, CCMA, or an accredited agency under the Labour Relations Act. The applicant did not demonstrate that he would not be afforded substantial redress in due course. The court emphasized that the right of access to court is fundamental but must be balanced against the need to follow established procedures. As a result, the application was struck from th…

  • Urgency In Motion Proceedings
  • Unlawful Dismissal
  • Municipal Governance
  • Right Of Appeal
  • Rule 6 12
  • Substantial Redress
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2024] ZAGPPHC 702

Match Padel Cedar Square (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Liquor Board (058697/2024)

Match Padel Cedar Square (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Liquor Board (058697/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 702 (16 July 2024)

Urgent application over refusal of a liquor licence struck off the roll because the applicant failed to justify urgency or show lack of substantial redress.

  • Urgency In Motion Proceedings
  • Restaurant Liquor Licence
  • Substantial Redress
  • Functus Officio
  • Rule 6 12
  • Costs Award
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2023] ZANWHC 149

Tsentsa Construction (Pty) Ltd v Impala Platinum Mine - Rustenburg (UM 149/23)

Tsentsa Construction (Pty) Ltd v Impala Platinum Mine - Rustenburg (UM 149/23) [2023] ZANWHC 149 (24 August 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for urgency under Rule 6(12). The applicant did not provide sufficient reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded at a hearing in due course. The timeline of events indicated that the applicant was slow to act and did not adequately explain the delay or demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be remedied by the normal court process. The grounds advanced for urgency were inadequate, and the application was accordingly struck from the roll. Costs were awarded against the applicant as there was no reason to depart…

  • Rule 6 Urgent Applications
  • Contractual Dispute
  • Substantial Redress
  • Costs Order
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2023] ZAGPPHC 535

Mokrane and Another v Bornman and Others

Mokrane and Another v Bornman and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 535; 2023-062766 (6 July 2023)

An urgent application to stop alleged defamatory emails and communications to Swiss authorities was struck from the roll because the applicants failed to show urgency or lack of substantial redress.

  • Urgent Interdict
  • Substantial Redress
  • Defamation
  • Family Dispute
  • Urgent-interdict
  • Court-urgency
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2022] ZANCT 56

Stevens v Lot 115 Wentworth Investments CC T/A RBS Pawnbrokers and Another (NCT/240141/2022/149(1))

Stevens v Lot 115 Wentworth Investments CC T/A RBS Pawnbrokers and Another (NCT/240141/2022/149(1)) [2022] ZANCT 56 (7 October 2022)

The Tribunal dismissed an urgent interim application for return of a vehicle, finding the applicant had not shown urgency or lack of substantial redress.

  • Interim Relief
  • Credit Agreement
  • Urgency
  • Substantial Redress
  • Urgent-interim-relief
  • National-credit-act
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.