South Africa Case Law

TPN Transport and Distribution (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023-103348)

TPN Transport and Distribution (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023-103348) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1274 (7 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-103348

Judge

Moorcroft

The application was dismissed as it failed to comply with the procedural requirements for urgent applications and did not establish urgency. The applicant did not make out a case for contempt of court, as the order of 4 November 2022 was not binding on most respondents and no wilful or mala fide conduct was proven. The spoliation relief was refused because the applicant was not unlawfully dispossessed; its operating licence facilities were removed following due process, and it had no right to the facilities in Ekurhuleni. The applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material fact…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Contempt Of Court
• Urgent Application Practice
• Operating Licence Review
• Punitive Costs

Arnold and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Others : In re: EOH Managed Services (PTY) Ltd v Creswick (42876/2020)

Arnold and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Others : In re: EOH Managed Services (PTY) Ltd v Creswick (42876/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 689 (14 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42876/2020

Judge

E F Dippenaar

The court found that the applicants launched the urgent application on insufficient notice and failed to comply with practice directives, including proper service on the liquidators. After the application became moot, the applicants abandoned the relief sought but failed to make a reasonable proposal regarding costs, thereby causing unnecessary additional expense and burdening the court. The conduct of the applicants justified a punitive costs order on the attorney and client scale. The court was not persuaded that the applicants' attorney should be held liable de bonis propriis, as it was un…

Source excerpt

• Costs Order
• Abuse Of Process
• Attorney And Client Scale
• De Bonis Propriis
• Urgent Application Practice
• Mootness

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (19955/2020, 22772/2020)

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (19955/2020, 22772/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 331; 83 SATC 295 (21 July 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19955/2020, 22772/2020

Judge

SP Mothle

The High Court dismissed two urgent applications to stop SARS from executing a customs debt judgment, finding the urgency contrived and no irreparable prejudice shown.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Interim Interdict
• Urgent Application Practice
• Export Refund Liability
• Acquittal Documentation
• Urgent-interdict

Kgatle v Minister of Justice And Correctional Services and Others (41072/2016)

Kgatle v Minister of Justice And Correctional Services and Others (41072/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 515 (25 May 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

41072/2016

Judge

Baqwa

The High Court struck the urgent habeas corpus application from the roll, finding that the applicant had not shown sufficient urgency and had not complied with urgent application procedures.

• Urgent Application Practice
• Habeas Corpus
• Right Of Reply
• Parole Conditions
• Urgent-applications
• Habeas-corpus

Participate in Power Navigate (Pty) Ltd t/a "Pen" v Ngoveni and Another (52995/15)

Participate in Power Navigate (Pty) Ltd t/a "Pen" v Ngoveni and Another (52995/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 775 (18 August 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

52995/15

Judge

W. Hughes

The High Court struck the urgent application off the roll, finding lack of urgency, non-compliance with practice directives, and no proper locus standi.

• Urgent Application Practice
• Locus Standi
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Urgent-applications
• Locus-standi
• Eviction-law

X.K.V v M.S.V (2006/12)

X.K.V v M.S.V (2006/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 123 (15 May 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2006/12

Judge

Makgoka

Urgent Rule 43(6) application to vary interim residence arrangements for two children was struck from the roll for non-compliance, lack of urgency, and abuse of process.

• Rule 43 Variation
• Primary Residence Of Children
• Urgent Application Practice
• Costs In Child Disputes
• Rule-43
• Urgent-applications