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
Minister of Police v Gareng (2815/24) [2025] ZANWHC 113 (3 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed the Minister of Police’s application to uplift a bar, finding the delay unexplained and no bona fide defence shown.
Magdalene Georgiannis Marais Attorneys and Others v Indonet (Pty) Ltd TA One Fifty Capital (A2024/001078) [2025] ZAGPJHC 671 (13 June 2025)
The High Court held that an order uplifting a bar was interlocutory and not appealable, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Minister of Police v Abrams (1857/2022) [2025] ZANWHC 101 (12 June 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in delivering the application for upliftment of bar. The applicant's affidavit was lacking in primary facts and did not address the critical timelines relevant to good cause. Furthermore, the applicant did not set out a bona fide defence in the founding affidavit, and the defence raised in written argument was not supported by the facts presented. The court held that the requirements for condonation and upliftment of bar under Rule 27 of the Uniform Rules of Court were not satisfied. The…
Source excerpt
Malapela and Another v Zondo and Another (2023/065428) [2025] ZAGPJHC 586 (11 June 2025)
The court found that the loan agreement forming the basis of the default judgment was void ab initio because the Respondents were not registered credit providers as required by the National Credit Act. The agreement was not an incidental credit agreement, as it provided for interest from a date prior to its conclusion and thus fell within the definition of a credit agreement under section 8(4)(f) of the Act. There was no allegation or evidence that the Respondents were registered credit providers, and the loan originated from personal assistance rather than commercial lending. Consequently, t…
Source excerpt
Predynamic (Pty) Ltd v Kruger & Co Inc and Another (20457/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 237 (2 June 2025)
The court found that the first defendant provided a bona fide and reasonable explanation for its failure to file a plea, namely its belief that the interpleader proceedings suspended the main action. The conduct of both parties supported this belief, as neither pursued further proceedings until after the interpleader was resolved. The first defendant demonstrated a bona fide defence regarding the limitation of its liability under the undertaking and raised relevant issues for the determination of costs. The court held that denying the first defendant the opportunity to plead would violate its…
Source excerpt
Selogilwe Building Contractors CC v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs: North-West and Another (1296/2018) [2025] ZANWHC 84 (13 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to lift the bar and condone a very late replication, finding no good cause, weak explanations, and prejudice to the respondents.
Minister of Water and Sanitation v Limphota Housing CC (Leave to Appeal) (17766/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 346 (1 April 2025)
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show reasonable prospects of success, a satisfactory delay explanation, or a bona fide defence.
Hlangu's 86 Trading Enterprises CC v Man Financial Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Man Financial Services (2022-015113) [2025] ZAGPPHC 90 (3 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to uplift the bar, finding no good cause, no explanation for delay, and no defence to the claim.
Member of the Executive Council for Human Settlements, Gauteng v Katekani Investment (21/14457) [2025] ZAGPJHC 85 (3 February 2025)
The applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, primarily due to pursuing a stay application on senior counsel's advice. The delay was not wilful or grossly negligent. The application to uplift the bar is bona fide and not intended to frustrate the respondent's claim. There was no reckless or intentional disregard of the Uniform Rules of Court. The applicant's defence, based on the respondent's alleged poor performance and failure to complete the contracted works, is not ill-founded and has prospects of success. The respondent's opposition was justified due to the lengthy delay…
Source excerpt
Oertel v Kok and Others (097739/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 93 (31 January 2025)
The court found that while the respondents' notice to remove cause of complaint was not delivered within the time prescribed by rule 23(1)(a), its filing within the period allotted in the notice of bar was not irregular. However, it was not a proper response to the notice of bar, as a proper response would have been a plea or the exception itself. The respondents did not seek condonation for the late filing of the exception at the time, and thus were technically under bar from 10 November 2023. Nevertheless, the court exercised its discretion to grant condonation for the late filing of the ex…
Source excerpt
Explore more
