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
C.R.W v L.M.W and Another (12866/2014) [2025] ZAWCHC 279 (2 July 2025)
The High Court refused a stay of execution pending rescission and granted interim vexatious-litigant relief and security for costs against the applicant.
Beamish v Van Der Merwe (17916/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 230 (11 March 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondent's conduct meets the stringent requirements of the Vexatious Proceedings Act. The evidence showed that while the respondent had instituted and subsequently withdrawn several proceedings, there was no pattern of persistent litigation without reasonable grounds. The National Prosecuting Authority's statement that the respondent's allegations 'could be true' undermined the applicant's contention that the proceedings were baseless. Furthermore, no further proceedings were instituted by the respondent aft…
Source excerpt
Yabo v Rhodes University and Another (2489A/2024) [2025] ZAECMKHC 18 (20 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to hold Rhodes University in contempt and refused to order admission for 2025. It found no wilful non-compliance with the 2024 order.
De Filippo v Micillo (23724/2016 ; 11709/2017) [2024] ZAWCHC 290 (16 September 2024)
The High Court held the respondent in contempt for ignoring directives to obtain legal representation, declared her a vexatious litigant, and awarded wasted and punitive costs.
Mawere v Master of the High Court of South Africa and Another (123899/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 860 (29 August 2024)
The applicant, Mutumwa Dziva Mawere, was declared a vexatious litigant and prohibited from instituting proceedings without leave of court. Despite clear knowledge of the order and repeated warnings, he persisted in filing applications against the Master of the High Court without seeking leave. The requirements for contempt—existence of an order, knowledge of the order, and non-compliance—were all satisfied. Wilfulness and mala fides are presumed and further evidenced by the applicant's conduct. Given the sequestration of his estate, a fine would not be effective. The only appropriate sanction…
Source excerpt
Govender v Panday (15672/22P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 141 (23 November 2023)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the respondent had persistently and without reasonable ground instituted legal proceedings. The evidence showed that while the respondent had initiated several matters, many were pending and involved other parties who had not sought to have them finalised. There were periods where the respondent did not institute proceedings, and some actions appeared prima facie justifiable. The applicant did not demonstrate that the respondent's conduct amounted to persistence or that the proceedings were without reasonable grounds. The court disti…
Source excerpt
Emam v Carlson (20740/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 68 (11 April 2023)
The High Court declared the respondent a vexatious litigant after finding a persistent pattern of meritless proceedings against the applicant and others.
M T Makhubele Enterprises CC and Others v Business Partners Limited and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 166; 11789/19 (6 March 2023)
The court found that the applicants have persistently and without reasonable ground instituted a multiplicity of legal proceedings against the first respondent, including repeated applications for rescission, leave to appeal, urgent interdicts, and other interlocutory relief, all on substantially the same grounds. This conduct has been recognised by multiple judges as abusive and vexatious. The requirements of section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act were met. The constitutional challenge to the Act was rejected, as the limitation on access to courts is reasonable and justifiable to p…
Source excerpt
Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Van der Merwe and Others (7255/2019) [2021] ZAWCHC 197; 83 SATC 19 (21 September 2021)
The High Court declared the respondents vexatious litigants, struck out scandalous allegations, and barred new proceedings without leave of court.
Firstrand Bank Limited v Birch and Others (2667/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 134 (17 December 2019)
The court found that the respondents, after the dismissal of their initial rescission applications and subsequent appeals, continued to institute further proceedings raising the same arguments without new evidence, including a second set of rescission applications and an Anton Piller application. Despite repeated judicial pronouncements rejecting their locus standi argument, the respondents persisted in litigation based on mere suspicion rather than substantiated grounds. The court held that this conduct constitutes persistent and unreasonable institution of legal proceedings, amounting to ve…
Source excerpt
Explore more
