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
Transvaal Yacht Club v Seale and Others (62272/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 216 (28 February 2025)
The court corrected a patent costs error under Uniform Rule 42(1)(b) and dismissed a counter application seeking to rescind or void an earlier servitude-related order.
Dlamini and Others v Imbokodv Lemabalabala Holdings Limited and Others (2022/051081) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1112 (31 October 2024)
The court found that the applicants raised issues which another court could reasonably decide differently, thus meeting the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. The omission to deal with costs in the interlocutory and related applications constituted a patent error, which the court corrected under Uniform Rule of Court 42(1)(b). The court held that the shareholders' agreement is valid and governs the relationship between the parties, and the removal of the first applicant as director was lawfully effected by the shareholder. However, given the re…
Source excerpt
Dibe and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (147/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 318 (17 October 2024)
The court found that the applicants failed to make a timeous and formal application for postponement, did not provide a satisfactory explanation for their predicament, and had repeatedly delayed proceedings without fulfilling promises to pay. The applicants did not comply with procedural requirements for rescission, including service on creditors and the trustee, nor did they demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a bona fide defence. The application for postponement was dismissed as not being in the interests of justice, and the rescission application was dismissed for lack of merit and pr…
Source excerpt
Calculus Engineering and Project Management (Pty) Ltd v WBHO Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others (3396/2022) [2024] ZAECQBHC 68 (17 October 2024)
The court found that the order granted on 21 September 2023 was procedurally irregular and erroneously granted in the absence of Calculus Engineering and Project Management (Pty) Ltd, who was not properly cited as a third party. The Consortium, not being a legal entity, could not be sued in its own name, and all members should have been cited individually. The joint and several liability order was not appropriate, as the claims against the parties were based on different contracts and not delict. The procedural defects in the third-party notice and the absence of proper citation and notice to…
Source excerpt
Municipal Employees Pension Fund v Ntabankulu Local Municipality (11262/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1001 (7 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed MEPF’s application to rescind a default judgment, holding that service was proper, the judgment was not erroneously granted, and no good cause was shown.
David and Another v Maharaj (4910/2021P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 77 (5 September 2024)
The High Court rescinded a default order after finding a material citation irregularity in an earlier order under Uniform Rule 42(1)(a). Costs were awarded against the applicants.
L.T v N.A.T (2021/56157) [2023] ZAGPJHC 787 (11 July 2023)
The court found that the divorce order was granted following a procedurally regular process, with proper notice served on the defendant's attorneys. The defendant's absence was due to his attorneys' failure to inform him, not a procedural irregularity or error within the meaning of Rule 42(1)(a). The court emphasized that the requirements for variation under Rule 42(1)(a) are narrow and not met merely because a party was absent due to their attorney's omission. The subsequent employment of the plaintiff was not a fact existing at the time of the order and could not have influenced the judgmen…
Source excerpt
Sibindi v Tiger Consumer Brands Ltd (2022/7483) [2023] ZAGPJHC 694 (14 June 2023)
Application to rescind default judgment dismissed: the applicant failed to show good cause and the defences raised were not bona fide.
M.G.N v M.S.N [2023] ZAGPPHC 484; 4342/20 (2 June 2023)
The High Court varied a divorce order under Rule 42(1)(b), clarifying that the applicant’s living annuity and the respondent’s pension fund were already included in the equal division calculation.
Sekgala v Body Corporate of Petra Nera (08951/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 318 (13 April 2023)
The court found that Mr Sekgala was not absent from the proceedings leading to the provisional sequestration order of 8 September 2020, as he was present and made submissions. The requirement of absence under Rule 42(1)(a) was therefore not met. Furthermore, the order was not erroneously sought or granted, as Lamont J was aware of the relevant facts and acted to ensure compliance with section 11(1) of the Insolvency Act by providing Mr Sekgala an opportunity to show cause. Even if the requirements for rescission were met, the court would not exercise its discretion in favour of rescission due…
Source excerpt
Explore more
