Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAGPJHC 498

Mokhatla and Others v Ntsuseng and Others (2022/554)

Mokhatla and Others v Ntsuseng and Others (2022/554) [2024] ZAGPJHC 498 (21 May 2024)

Urgent spoliation application dismissed for defective papers, poor service, misjoined parties, and non-compliance with urgent motion practice rules.

  • Urgent Motion Practice
  • Spoliation
  • Punitive Costs
  • Joinder And Intervention
  • Practice Directives Noncompliance
  • Urgent-motion-practice
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2021] ZAFSHC 13

J.R.K v H.E.K (4711/2020)

J.R.K v H.E.K (4711/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 13 (3 February 2021)

The court found that the applicant was unlawfully deprived of possession of the property by the respondent's insertion of keyhole blockers, constituting spoliation. However, the application was not inherently urgent, and the applicant failed to provide sufficient justification for urgency, having neglected to respond to correspondence or issue a letter of demand prior to approaching the court. Both parties contributed to the escalation of the dispute, with the respondent resorting to self-help and the applicant abusing the legal process for tactical advantage. The court held that, while the a…

  • Mandament Van Spolie
  • Urgent Motion Practice
  • Costs Award
  • Possession Of Property
  • Divorce Proceedings
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2019] ZAWCHC 141

C and C Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Townsend; Townsend v C and C Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd (16527/19)

C and C Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Townsend; Townsend v C and C Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd (16527/19) [2019] ZAWCHC 141 (29 October 2019)

The court held that reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c) is not available to a party who was aware of the urgent application and chose not to oppose it, as the order was granted by default and not ex parte. Both Bailey and the company were properly served, had legal advice, and made a conscious decision not to oppose the provisional liquidation. The company’s commercial insolvency was established on the papers, with substantial debts to creditors and SARS, and a lack of liquid assets. The provisional liquidation order was justified, and no grounds existed for judicial interference or reversal.…

  • Provisional Liquidation
  • Urgent Motion Practice
  • Reconsideration Under Rule 6 12 C
  • Commercial Insolvency
  • Creditor Standing
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2015] ZAGPJHC 10

Makhwelo v Minister of Safety And Security (2013/26724)

Makhwelo v Minister of Safety And Security (2013/26724) [2015] ZAGPJHC 10; 2017 (1) SA 274 (GJ) (3 February 2015)

High Court urgent application on late statutory notice under the state liability act, arising from a wrongful arrest and detention claim.

  • Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against State
  • Condonation
  • Wrongful Arrest And Detention
  • Prescription
  • Urgent Motion Practice
  • Urgent-motion
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.