South Africa Case Law

Divaris and Another v Master of the High Court Johannesburg and Others (046772/2023)

Divaris and Another v Master of the High Court Johannesburg and Others (046772/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 611 (1 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

046772/2023

Judge

C E Thompson

The court held that the summons issued under section 152(2) of the Insolvency Act was invalid due to the failure to tender the prescribed witness fees. The authorities binding on the court require strict compliance with the tariff, and a defective tender renders the summons liable to be set aside. The respondents' attempt to distinguish the matter on the basis of waiver or remote evidence was rejected, as waiver was neither pleaded nor established, and the applicants' conduct did not amount to acceptance of the defective process. The court found no basis for costs de bonis propriis, as the re…

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Act Section 152
• Witness Fees Tender
• Summons Validity
• Waiver Of Rights

O'Sullivan and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (63929/2017)

O'Sullivan and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (63929/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 655 (6 October 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

63929/2017

Judge

M.W. Msimeki

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12), having not set out explicit circumstances or reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded in due course. The NPA order did not create special rights beyond those provided by the Constitution and statute; the right to make representations accrues only after service of a charge sheet. The summons was lawfully issued and did not contravene the prior court order. The application was premature, as the applicants had not exercised their right to seek review. The application constituted an abuse of pr…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Application
• Declaratory Relief
• Review Of Prosecutorial Decision
• Summons Validity
• Attorney And Client Costs

Media24 Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (18/X/APR10)

Media24 Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (18/X/APR10) [2010] ZACT 44; [2010] 2 CPLR 418 (CT) (8 July 2010)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

18/X/APR10

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Andreas Wessels

The Tribunal dismissed a challenge to a Competition Commissioner summons, holding that the document requests and interrogatories were lawful, relevant, and not void for vagueness.

• Predatory Pricing
• Summons Validity
• Dominant Firm Conduct
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Procedural Fairness
• Competition-law

Woodlands Dairy (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission; Competition Commission v Clover Industries Limited and Others (103/CR/Dec06)

Woodlands Dairy (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission; Competition Commission v Clover Industries Limited and Others (103/CR/Dec06) [2009] ZACT 18; [2009] 1 CPLR 250 (CT) (17 March 2009)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

103/CR/Dec06

Judges

D Lewis, N Manoim, M Madlanga

The Tribunal found that both the summonses issued to Woodlands Dairy (Pty) Ltd and Milkwood Dairy (Pty) Ltd were void for vagueness and overbreadth. The summonses failed to specify with sufficient particularity the prohibited practice under investigation, thereby exposing the applicants to unfair administrative action and undue invasion of privacy. The Tribunal held that a summons under section 49A of the Competition Act must stipulate the prohibited practice and provide enough detail to guide the addressee. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the applicants had waived their rights, findi…

Source excerpt

• Summons Validity
• Procedural Fairness
• Preservation Order
• Complaint Initiation
• Admissibility Of Evidence

Bronn v Minister of Justice and Others (20598/2006)

Bronn v Minister of Justice and Others (20598/2006) [2007] ZAGPHC 45 (31 May 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

20598/2006

Judge

L M Molopa

High Court review of a Master’s decision to convene a section 152 Insolvency Act enquiry was dismissed. The court upheld the enquiry’s confidentiality and the summons process.

• Insolvency Act Section 152 Enquiry
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Summons Validity
• Sequestration Procedure
• Insolvency-act-section-152
• Review-of-administrative-action