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
Lesedi Local Municipality v Heidelberg Beer Festival CC (2025/040312) [2025] ZAGPJHC 755 (4 August 2025)
The High Court granted Lesedi Local Municipality urgent relief against an unlawfully occupying tenant, ordering it to stop trading and vacate the premises.
Hlabang Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd v Caterpillar Financial Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025/115482) [2025] ZAGPJHC 761 (3 August 2025)
The High Court set aside an ex parte repossession order after finding Catfin relied on generic, unparticularised allegations and failed to justify dispensing with notice.
Koutroulis and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Another (2025-121587) [2025] ZAGPPHC 765 (31 July 2025)
The court found that the attachment of Mr. Koutroulis's Nedbank account was incomplete and invalid because notice of attachment was not given to all interested parties as required by Rule 45(8)(c)(i)(a). Rule 45(12) does not dispense with the notice requirement, and the two rules operate in tandem. The Sheriff’s own return confirmed that satisfaction of the writ had not been demanded from the judgment debtor. The court relied on Riordan v First National Bank Limited and others, which held that irregular attachments without proper notice must be set aside. Furthermore, the summons was not effe…
Source excerpt
Mashinini v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (Ex Tempore) (2023-098939) [2025] ZAGPPHC 772 (30 July 2025)
Urgent contempt application over non-release on parole dismissed because the Minister was not cited personally and non-compliance was not shown to be mala fide.
Jamco Supplies CC v Preference Capital (Pty) Ltd (2025/103438) [2025] ZAGPJHC 758 (29 July 2025)
The court held that the perfection order granted to the respondent did not authorise the respondent or the sheriff to deny the applicant access to its business premises or to prevent it from trading. The language of the order was clear and did not contain any provision permitting the locking of the premises or exclusion of the applicant. The respondent could have sought such relief in its perfection application or approached the court for further relief, but failed to do so. The respondent's reliance on Contract Forwarding was misplaced, as the facts and the terms of the order in that case we…
Source excerpt
Ngqushwa Local Municipality v SAMWU obo Mangesi and Others (2025/071747) [2025] ZALCPE 14 (29 July 2025)
The Labour Court granted Ngqushwa Local Municipality urgent relief staying enforcement of an arbitration award and accepted reduced security pending review.
Hazan v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (2025/082129) [2025] ZAGPJHC 759 (29 July 2025)
Urgent application by an asylum seeker in detention dismissed. The court held he had not followed the statutory asylum process and had not shown entitlement to halt prosecution or secure release.
Alnajar v Director General, Department Home Affairs and Others (2025/109528) [2025] ZAGPJHC 748 (28 July 2025)
Urgent application for release from detention at Lindela was dismissed after the court found the applicant was a prohibited person under the Immigration Act.
DOT Office Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Badroonisha and Others (2025/114793) [2025] ZALCJHB 329 (28 July 2025)
The Labour Court refused to make a restraint-of-trade judgment immediately executable pending appeal because the applicant failed to show no irreparable harm to the respondent.
H.C.C and Another v N.E.M and Others (Reasons) (1790/2023) [2025] ZALMPTHC 12 (25 July 2025)
The court found that the applicant did not abuse the court process by requesting a virtual hearing, as the allocation was within the judicial functions of the Judge President. The applicant demonstrated urgency by acting immediately after the vehicle's attachment and provided sufficient explanation that substantial redress would not be available if the vehicle was sold before the pending applications were resolved. The court held that the applicant met the requirements for an interdict: he had a clear right to his property, faced irreparable harm due to the disproportionate value of the vehic…
Source excerpt
Explore more
