South Africa Case Law

Merchant Commercial Finance 1 (PTY) Limited v Berlex 96 CC (2022/17020)

Merchant Commercial Finance 1 (PTY) Limited v Berlex 96 CC (2022/17020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 205; [2025] 2 All SA 570 (GJ) (3 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/17020

Judge

D Marais

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for ex parte relief, as the urgency and imminent liquidation were based on unsubstantiated allegations and conjecture. The applicant did not provide documentary or credible evidence of threats of liquidation by other creditors, nor did it justify deviation from normal court procedures. The applicant also failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure by not informing the court of the prior order, the subsequent return of assets to the respondent, and its lack of entitlement to enforce unregistered bonds. These non-disclosures were…

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Orders
• Perfecting Notarial Bonds
• Parate Executie
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Urgent Applications
• Suretyship Liability

J.G.K v E.C.K (2025-006745)

J.G.K v E.C.K (2025-006745) [2025] ZAGPPHC 79 (3 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-006745

Judge

Swanepoel

Urgent application to suspend a Magistrate’s Court maintenance-related order was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs against the applicant.

• Maintenance Orders
• Urgent Applications
• Contempt Of Court
• Variation Of Orders
• Urgent-applications
• Maintenance-orders

Choeu v Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Limpopo and Others (JA124/2023)

Choeu v Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Limpopo and Others (JA124/2023) [2024] ZALAC 67; [2025] 4 BLLR 419 (LAC) (24 December 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA 124/2023

Judges

Molahlehi, Musi, Mooki

The Labour Appeal Court set aside an order barring an advocate from charging fees after finding the Labour Court made adverse findings without hearing her.

• Costs Awards
• Adverse Findings Against Counsel
• Right To A Hearing
• Urgent Applications
• Stay Of Enforcement
• Adverse-findings-against-counsel

Petrefuel (Pty) Ltd v Tarsica Investments No 7 CC and Others (3424/2024)

Petrefuel (Pty) Ltd v Tarsica Investments No 7 CC and Others (3424/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 358 (11 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3424/2024

Judge

A Bhoopchand

The High Court held that an earlier order required removal, not mere securing, of underground fuel tanks, and dismissed an urgent contempt application with costs.

• Contempt Of Court
• Interpretation Of Court Orders
• Specific Performance
• Fuel Supply Agreements
• Urgent Applications
• Contempt-of-court

City of Johannesburg v Unlawful Occupiers of Various Units at Donovan Macdonald Retirement Centre and Others (2024/090272)

City of Johannesburg v Unlawful Occupiers of Various Units at Donovan Macdonald Retirement Centre and Others (2024/090272) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1036 (16 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/090272

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court dismissed the City’s leave to appeal against refusal of an urgent PIE eviction order, holding the decision was interlocutory and not appealable.

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Interim Eviction Orders
• Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders
• Jurisdictional Requirements
• Urgent Applications
• Prevention-of-illegal-eviction

Mama Money (Pty) Ltd v Siphumelele Logistics (Pty) Ltd (Ex Tempore) (2498/2024)

Mama Money (Pty) Ltd v Siphumelele Logistics (Pty) Ltd (Ex Tempore) (2498/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 67 (18 September 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

2498/2024

Judge

B.B. Brody

The court postponed a provisional liquidation application, gave the respondent a final chance to file opposing papers, and ordered wasted costs against the respondent and its former attorney.

• Provisional Liquidation
• Company Director Liability
• Urgent Applications
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Provisional-liquidation
• De-bonis-propriis-costs

J.S v Z.M (2024/090962)

J.S v Z.M (2024/090962) [2024] ZAGPJHC 859 (29 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/090962

Judge

Du Plessis

The court found that at the time the application was instituted, both the respondent and the minor child had already relocated to KwaZulu Natal and were no longer ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the South Gauteng High Court. Jurisdiction is determined by residence at the time of institution of proceedings, not by domicile or previous residence. The applicant was notified of the respondent’s relocation prior to proceeding but chose to continue regardless. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and struck the application from the roll. The cost order reflec…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Urgent Applications
• Care And Contact
• Parental Alienation

Ncongwane and Another v South African Legal Practice Council and Others (34484/2017)

Ncongwane and Another v South African Legal Practice Council and Others (34484/2017) [2024] ZAGPPHC 692 (17 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34484/2017

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court held that a suspension order against an attorney was interlocutory, so appeal did not automatically stay it. The applicants also failed to justify urgent interim relief.

• Suspension Of Attorneys
• Interlocutory Orders
• Superior Courts Act Section 18
• Urgent Applications
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Attorney-suspension

Kruger v Ithala Soc Ltd (19051/2023)

Kruger v Ithala Soc Ltd (19051/2023) [2024] ZAKZPHC 17 (14 March 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

19051/2023

Judge

Veerasamy AJ

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a factual basis for proceeding ex parte and urgently, as the founding affidavit did not set out specific facts justifying the absence of notice to the respondent. The applicant did not disclose material facts regarding the Pretoria order and the settlement discussions with the Prudential Authority, which were relevant to the scope of his powers and the relief sought. The absence of an in camera certificate was a fatal procedural defect, as required by the rules and confirmed in Three Cities Investments. The applicant did not make reasonab…

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Orders
• Urgent Applications
• Banks Act Proceedings
• Material Nondisclosure
• In Camera Hearings

M Magigaba Incorporated Attorneys and Another v Legal Aid South Africa and Others (LCC147/2008; LCC 191/2008; LCC 05/2014)

M Magigaba Incorporated Attorneys and Another v Legal Aid South Africa and Others (LCC147/2008; LCC 191/2008; LCC 05/2014) [2024] ZALCC 9; [2024] 2 All SA 407 (LCC) (4 March 2024)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC147/2008; LCC 191/2008; LCC 05/2014

Judge

Spilg

The Land Claims Court held that Legal Aid South Africa had not terminated the applicants’ mandate and must pay assessed or taxed fees and disbursements once accreditation was completed.

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Legal Aid Accreditation
• Mandate And Estoppel
• Urgent Applications
• Costs Against State
• Ubuntu In Contract