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
Chief Executive Officer, Northern Cape Liquor Board v Reed (1179/2018; 731/2018) [2024] ZANCHC 10 (9 February 2024)
The High Court held that Joseph Reed validly withdrew two proceedings under Rule 41 before the stay application could proceed, striking the stay application from the roll.
Sekgopo Traditional Council and Another v Chairperson of the Limpop Provincial Committee on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Others (7700/2019) [2024] ZALMPPHC 20 (6 February 2024)
The court found that the application for reinstatement was not urgent and did not meet the requirements of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The founding affidavit was not properly commissioned, rendering the application fatally defective. The applicants failed to provide cogent reasons for urgency or for why substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. Although Rule 41(1)(a) allows for withdrawal and possible reinstatement of proceedings before set down, the procedural defects and lack of urgency in this case precluded reinstatement. The application was struck off the rol…
Source excerpt
Total South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Dowraj Service Station CC and Another (16767/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1155 (13 October 2023)
The plaintiff withdrew a summary judgment application. The High Court held that, absent cogent reasons to depart, the plaintiff should bear the costs.
RVRN Crushing (Pty) Ltd v GDF Incorporated Consultants (Pty) Ltd (22/12513) [2023] ZAGPJHC 939; 2024 (1) SA 269 (GJ) (24 August 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to set aside notices of bar and withdrawal, holding there was no costs-tender obligation for curing an irregular step under Rule 30A.
Apa Africa (Pty) Ltd v Melrose Arch Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (032219/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 510 (18 May 2023)
The High Court granted leave to withdraw an urgent application and ordered the applicant to pay costs on the attorney-and-client scale.
Hull v Free Market Foundation (Southern Africa) and Others (2021/39680) [2023] ZAGPJHC 103 (8 February 2023)
The court exercised its unfettered discretion regarding costs, noting that the main application and related interlocutory applications became moot following the election of a new Board. The Foundation's conduct after the matter became moot, including filing unnecessary affidavits, seeking commercial court certification, and persisting with litigation, was unjustified and increased costs unnecessarily. Hull's proposal that each party bear its own costs was reasonable. The Foundation's application for costs was dismissed, and it was ordered to pay the costs of the costs application, including t…
Source excerpt
Pudi v Tshwane University of Technology (JS 801/17) [2022] ZALCJHB 211 (10 August 2022)
The Labour Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against refusal to reinstate a withdrawn matter, finding no reasonable prospects of success.
Minister of Home Affairs and Another v NEC Africa (Pty) Ltd (69402/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 507 (14 July 2022)
The court held that the applicants' claim for costs prescribed because all facts necessary for their cause of action were known on 19 June 2018, when the notice of withdrawal was delivered without a tender for costs. The applicants' argument that prescription only begins upon a court order or taxation was rejected, as legal certainty is not a prerequisite for prescription to commence. Subsequent correspondence between the parties did not interrupt or affect prescription, as there was no unequivocal acknowledgment of liability for costs by the respondent. Accordingly, the application for costs…
Source excerpt
Pudi v Tshwane University of Technology (JR 801/17) [2022] ZALCJHB 160 (3 June 2022)
The court found that the applicant's delay of 23 months in bringing the reinstatement application was excessive and inadequately explained, as the sole reason provided was difficulty in securing legal representation, which is insufficient. The applicant failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for the entire period of delay, including a four-month gap with his current attorneys. The court held that, in line with established principles, condonation is not granted for the mere asking and requires a judicious exercise of discretion considering the length and explanation of the delay, prospe…
Source excerpt
Special Investigation Unit v Johannesburg Social Housing Company and Others (GP14/2021) [2021] ZAST 5 (2 September 2021)
The Tribunal found that the SIU failed to comply with its own timeframes and Tribunal procedures, withdrew Part A of the application at the last minute, and did not tender costs as required by Tribunal Rule 21(1). The respondents continued to perform under the contract and suffered prejudice due to the SIU's conduct. The Tribunal held that the SIU's application for interim relief was unjustified, vexatious, and misconceived, and that the respondents were entitled to costs on the attorney and client scale, including the costs of obtaining the order. The Tribunal exercised its discretion in fav…
Source excerpt
Explore more
