South Africa Case Law

Modjela N.O and Another v Engelbrecht N.O and Another (3783/2022)

Modjela N.O and Another v Engelbrecht N.O and Another (3783/2022) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 56 (18 June 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3783/2022

Judge

JL Bhengu

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b), having delayed their application despite early notice of the intended sale. The applicants did not comply with their disclosure obligations under section 26(7) of POCA, nor did they engage constructively with the Curator to resolve the matter. Their assertion of irreparable harm was undermined by the existence of a further period for acceptance of tenders and their refusal to discuss alternative means of preserving the property. The court held that the urgency was self-created and that the applicants…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Order
• Interim Interdict
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Fiduciary Duties Of Trustees
• Urgent Application Requirements
• Costs Punitive Order

Lebelo v First National Bank (Ex tempore) (143809/2024)

Lebelo v First National Bank (Ex tempore) (143809/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 527 (20 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

143809/2024

Judge

Wilson

The court removed an urgent estate-distribution application from the roll because the applicant failed to set out facts showing urgency. No costs order was made.

• Urgent Application Requirements
• Estate Distribution
• Lay Litigant Procedure
• Urgent-application-requirements
• Estate-distribution
• Lay-litigant-procedure

Makhubele and Another v University of the Witwatersrand and Another (2024/028930)

Makhubele and Another v University of the Witwatersrand and Another (2024/028930) [2025] ZAGPJHC 590 (15 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/028930

Judge

Mfenyana

The court found that the application, styled as a reconsideration, was in fact a hybrid of multiple applications—reconsideration, rescission, review, and section 18 relief—none of which were competent or compliant with the Rules of Court. The reconsideration application did not meet the requirements of rule 6(12)(c), as the prior order was made in the presence of the applicants and opposed by the respondents. The rescission application lacked grounds, and the review application did not pass the threshold for review. The repeated institution of similar applications, all relating to the same un…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Process
• Urgent Application Requirements
• Reconsideration Under Rule 6 12 C
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Security For Costs

Thamani Mobile (Pty) Ltd v F Casey and Associates (Pty) Ltd and Others (145565/2024)

Thamani Mobile (Pty) Ltd v F Casey and Associates (Pty) Ltd and Others (145565/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 176 (26 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

145565/2024

Judge

Neukircher

An urgent application for payment and contract-processing relief was dismissed for lack of urgency, non-joinder of an interested party, and lis pendens.

• Lis Pendens
• Interim Interdict
• Joinder Of Parties
• Urgent Application Requirements
• Contractual Entitlement To Payment
• Urgent-application

Mhlanga v S (56/2025)

Mhlanga v S (56/2025) [2025] ZAMPMHC 3 (17 January 2025)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

56/2025

Judge

Phahlamohlaka

Urgent bail-review application struck off for lack of urgency and wrong procedure; the court held that review and appeal were confused and no substantial redress issue was shown.

• Bail Procedure
• Urgent Application Requirements
• Review Vs Appeal
• Costs Award
• Abuse Of Process
• Criminal-procedure

Lesedi Local Municipality v Strydom (2023/107942)

Lesedi Local Municipality v Strydom (2023/107942) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1221 (22 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/107942

Judge

M M Mabesele

The High Court dismissed a municipality’s review-style challenge to a magistrate’s proceedings, finding the application procedurally defective and confusingly framed.

• Review Vs Appeal
• Rule Nisi Confirmation
• Urgent Application Requirements
• Review-vs-appeal
• Rule-nisi
• Procedural-defect

P.M obo a Minor v MEC for Health Gauteng (2022/23339)

P.M obo a Minor v MEC for Health Gauteng (2022/23339) [2024] ZAGPJHC 981 (10 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/23339

Judge

A Bester

An urgent interim-payment application was struck from the roll after repeated non-compliance with prior orders, and the applicant’s lawyer was ordered to pay punitive costs personally.

• Interim Payment
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Best Interests Of Child
• Contempt Of Court
• Trust Establishment
• Urgent Application Requirements

Mdlulu v National Housing Finance Corporation (J841/2024)

Mdlulu v National Housing Finance Corporation (J841/2024) [2024] ZALCJHB 346 (23 August 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J841/2024

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court struck the application off the roll for lack of urgency, finding the applicant’s delay self-created and substantial redress still available.

• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Sick Leave Entitlement
• Urgent Application Requirements
• Declaratory Relief
• Labour-law
• Urgent-applications

Mavundla v MEC: Department of Corporative Government and Traditional Affairs Kwazulu-Natal and Others (7940/2024)

Mavundla v MEC: Department of Corporative Government and Traditional Affairs Kwazulu-Natal and Others (7940/2024) [2024] ZAKZPHC 66 (16 August 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

7940/2024

Judge

E Bezuidenhout

The court rescinded an urgent interim order, discharged the rule nisi, and awarded punitive costs after finding defective service, non-joinder, and no case for interdictory relief.

• Municipal Structures Act
• Interim Interdict
• Joinder Of Parties
• Urgent Application Requirements
• General Law Amendment Act Section 35
• Urgent-application

Public Servants Association of South Africa obo Dodo v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (J452/2024)

Public Servants Association of South Africa obo Dodo v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (J452/2024) [2024] ZALCJHB 204 (15 May 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J452/2024

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

Urgent Labour Court application dismissed for self-created urgency and available alternative remedies in a disciplinary dispute over external chairperson appointments.

• Disciplinary Code Interpretation
• Urgent Application Requirements
• Procedural Fairness
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Collective Bargaining Agreements
• Urgent-labour-application