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
Rathete v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (0000429/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 21 (13 January 2025)
The High Court removed an urgent application from the roll because the correctional services respondents had not been properly served and had no chance to answer.
Swallows FC v Wowowo and Another (045818/2022 ; 046387/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 949 (9 December 2022)
The court held that, under the NSL Handbook and SAFA regulatory framework, the default position is that the lodgment of an appeal to the SAFA Arbitration Tribunal does not suspend the operation of a DRC award in non-disciplinary matters. Article 125(2) of the SAFA Disciplinary Code does not apply to such appeals. However, an aggrieved party may request the arbitrator to suspend the award pending the outcome of the appeal, as the arbitrator's powers are sufficiently broad under Article 81(11) of the SAFA Disciplinary Code and Article 58(6) of the SAFA Statute. Temporary interdicts were granted…
Source excerpt
Phaweni and Another v Changing Tides 17 (Proprietary) Limited N.O and Others (24441/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 612 (20 October 2020)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application to suspend a sale in execution, holding the pleaded Rule 46A and procedural challenges were unsupported and defective.
Ngaka Modiri Molema District Municipality v Chairperson, North West Provincial Executive Committee and Others (CCT 186/14) [2014] ZACC 31; 2015 (1) BCLR 72 (CC) (18 November 2014)
The Constitutional Court held that the urgency in this matter lies not in restoring the status of municipal councillors but in ensuring the immediate provision of basic services to the affected communities. The Municipality failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to itself or its councillors, as any harm could be remedied if the review application succeeds. The administrator's intervention was lawful and aimed at restoring essential services, and the evidence showed that most affected areas had been reconnected. The interests of justice did not warrant granting leave to appeal or direct access…
Source excerpt
Platinum Mine Investments 513 (Pty) Ltd v Freeman NO (13933/2005) [2005] ZAGPHC 326 (27 September 2005)
The High Court interpreted and rectified an ambiguous costs order from a temporary interdict application, confirming the respondent had to pay those costs.
Hari and Others v Marikana Lesotho Long Distance Taxi Association and Others (321/04) [2005] ZANWHC 8 (1 January 2005)
Full Bench appeal on taxi operators and cross-border permits, holding the respondents were not conducting cross-border transport and setting aside the interdict.
Explore more
