South Africa Case Law

Francois Jurie Nicolaas Harman v Pieter Hendrik Strydom (285/2024)

Francois Jurie Nicolaas Harman v Pieter Hendrik Strydom (285/2024) [2025] ZASCA 108 (18 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

285/2024

Judges

Mothle, Weiner, Smith, Vally, Norman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's right to be heard was not violated by the urgent ex parte order, as multiple procedural avenues existed for him to challenge or reconsider the order, none of which he pursued. The interim orders requiring disclosure of the identities of contributors to the defamatory posts were not overbroad, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any legal or practical inability to comply, nor did he substantiate his reliance on POPIA or section 14 of the Constitution. The life-threatening nature of the posts justified the initial ex parte relief, and ind…

Source excerpt

• Audi Alteram Partem
• Urgent Ex Parte Application
• Interdict
• Defamation On Social Media
• Section 34 Right Of Access To Court

I.L.L v L.V.H and Others (1889/2022)

I.L.L v L.V.H and Others (1889/2022) [2024] ZAECQBHC 7 (1 February 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1889/2022

Judge

Gqamana

The High Court confirmed a rule nisi and ordered the first respondent to return the applicant’s identity document, passport and bank card.

• Rei Vindicatio
• Final Interdict
• Family Property Dispute
• Costs Order
• Oral Evidence
• Urgent Ex Parte Application

Strydom v Harman (UM123/2022)

Strydom v Harman (UM123/2022) [2023] ZANWHC 70 (8 June 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM123/2022

Judge

J T Djaje

The High Court confirmed interim interdicts against Facebook defamation, ordering disclosure of recipients of the posts and awarding costs against the respondent.

• Final Interdict
• Defamation
• Urgent Ex Parte Application
• Protection Of Dignity
• Interdict
• Urgent-ex-parte-application

Phethla v Phethla and Others (HCA10/2022)

Phethla v Phethla and Others (HCA10/2022) [2023] ZALMPPHC 8 (16 February 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCA10/2022

Judges

Muller, K L Pillay

The High Court dismissed an appeal against the discharge of an urgent ex parte interdict concerning a communal property association meeting and administration.

• Urgent Ex Parte Application
• Interim Interdict
• Communal Property Association Act
• Administrative Decision
• Duty Of Full Disclosure
• Abuse Of Process

Hobkirk v Bricker and Another (6972/2022)

Hobkirk v Bricker and Another (6972/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 68 (23 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

6972/2022

Judge

Mazibuko

The court found that the applicant had disclosed all material facts relevant to her complaint, even if certain documents were not attached, and that the non-disclosure was not material or critical. The applicant established clear rights to dignity, privacy, reputation, and professional practice, which the respondents infringed through harassment and defamatory conduct, including sending an email to her employer. The court determined that no adequate alternative remedy was available and that the respondents would suffer no prejudice from the final interdict. The interim order was confirmed as…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Harassment
• Right To Privacy
• Dignity
• Urgent Ex Parte Application

Zahos and Others v Anastassopoulos and Others (22/1012)

Zahos and Others v Anastassopoulos and Others (22/1012) [2022] ZAGPJHC 393 (29 April 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22/1012

Judge

Windell

The High Court discharged most of an urgent interim interdict for lack of primary facts and vagueness, confirming only relief tied to alleged assault by the first respondent.

• Interim Interdict
• Urgent Ex Parte Application
• Business Relationship Dispute
• Rule Nisi
• Locus Standi
• Interim-interdict

Sheriff African Board of Sheriff v Cibe and Others (30169/2021)

Sheriff African Board of Sheriff v Cibe and Others (30169/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 153 (17 March 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

30169/2021

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court discharged an ex parte order freezing a sheriff’s business account, holding the Sheriffs Act did not authorize control over that account and the dispute had become moot.

• Interdictory Relief
• Locus Standi
• Trust Account Regulation
• Urgent Ex Parte Application
• Interdicts
• Urgent-applications

Murray N.O and Others v Burger N.O and Others (5797/2019)

Murray N.O and Others v Burger N.O and Others (5797/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 89 (16 September 2020)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5797/2019

Judge

M Naude

The High Court awarded the applicants party-and-party costs up to 3 March 2020, ordered each party to bear later costs, and discharged the rule nisi.

• Costs Award
• Party And Party Scale
• Attorney And Client Scale
• Urgent Ex Parte Application
• Rule Nisi
• Settlement Offer

Ex Parte: van Heerden (1079/2020)

Ex Parte: van Heerden (1079/2020) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 5 (27 March 2020)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1079/2020

Judge

Roelofse

An ex parte application to permit inter-provincial travel for a funeral during South Africa’s COVID-19 lockdown was dismissed as contrary to the regulations.

• Disaster Management Act
• Lockdown Regulations
• Restriction Of Movement
• Urgent Ex Parte Application
• Covid-19-lockdown
• Restriction-of-movement

Ex Parte; The Gauteng Consumer Protector In re; Qika v TMA Auto-Africa (GCC/04/2020)

Ex Parte; The Gauteng Consumer Protector In re; Qika v TMA Auto-Africa (GCC/04/2020) [2020] ZACONAF 9 (13 March 2020)

Court

Consumer Affairs Court

Case number

GCC/04/2020

Judges

M Phukubje, M A du Plessis, P Opperman

An urgent ex parte consumer matter in which the Gauteng Consumer Protector sought and obtained a warrant against TMA Auto-Africa.

• Urgent Ex Parte Application
• Warrant Granting
• Urgent-ex-parte-application
• Warrant-granting
• Consumer-protection