South Africa Case Law

Zuma v Downer and Another (788/2023)

Zuma v Downer and Another (788/2023) [2023] ZASCA 132; [2023] 4 All SA 644 (SCA); 2024 (2) SA 356 (SCA); 2024 (1) SACR 589 (SCA) (13 October 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

788/2023

Judges

Molemela, Ponnan, Saldulker, Mocumie, Mothle

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the private prosecution initiated by Mr Zuma against Mr Downer and Ms Maughan was an abuse of process, instituted for ulterior purposes including delaying his criminal trial and removing Mr Downer as prosecutor. The charges were found to be unfounded and unsustainable, with no confidential information disclosed and no cognisable offence committed. The court held that permitting the private prosecution to continue pending appeal would perpetuate the abuse and cause irreparable harm to the respondents, including undermining press freedom and public confide…

Source excerpt

• Private Prosecution
• Abuse Of Process
• Suspension Of Order Pending Appeal
• Irreparable Harm
• Press Freedom
• Punitive Costs

Matseba v Liberty Group Limited (J2920/16)

Matseba v Liberty Group Limited (J2920/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 572; (2017) 38 ILJ 1155 (LC) (14 December 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2920/16

Judge

Steenkamp

The Labour Court held that an application for leave to appeal did not suspend dismissal of an earlier interdict application, and dismissed a fresh urgent bid.

• Interdictory Relief
• Suspension Of Order Pending Appeal
• Disciplinary Hearing
• Superior Courts Act Section 18
• Suspension-of-order-pending-appeal
• Urgent-interdict

Nyathi and Others v Tenitor Properties (Pty) Ltd, In re: Tenitor Properties (Pty) Ltd v Nyathi and Others (06579/2015)

Nyathi and Others v Tenitor Properties (Pty) Ltd, In re: Tenitor Properties (Pty) Ltd v Nyathi and Others (06579/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 115 (9 June 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

06579/2015

Judges

SE Weiner, WHG van der Linde, Klein

The court found that the respondent had established exceptional circumstances justifying the execution of the eviction order pending appeal. The appellants' occupation was maintained by violence and a rent boycott, causing the respondent severe financial harm and threatening its continued existence. The respondent's ownership was proven by the title deed and registration, and the appellants failed to raise a bona fide dispute regarding ownership. The huur gaat voor koop rule applied, making the respondent the lawful landlord, and the continued occupation without payment was unjustified. The a…

Source excerpt

• Eviction
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Suspension Of Order Pending Appeal
• Ownership Of Immovable Property
• Huur Gaat Voor Koop
• Irreparable Harm

Amarylis Investments (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Province Driving School Association and Another (41787/09)

Amarylis Investments (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Province Driving School Association and Another (41787/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 567 (11 May 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

41787/09

Judge

Phatudi

The court granted a Rule 49(11) application to bring its earlier order into effect pending appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs.

• Rule 49 11 Stay Of Execution
• Suspension Of Order Pending Appeal
• Costs Award
• Status Quo Preservation
• Rule-49-11-stay-of-execution
• Suspension-of-order-pending-appeal