JUDGMENT. The applicants wish to institute action against the respondents for damages
|
|
- Gary Smith
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NOT REPORTABLE (SOUTH EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION) Case No.: 3207/06 Date delivered: In the matter between: ERROL CLIVE VAN VUUREN First Applicant PATRICIA VAN VUUREN Second Applicant and MEC, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EASTERN CAPE First Respondent THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, DORA NGINZA HOSPITAL Second Respondent JUDGMENT JANSEN J: The applicants wish to institute action against the respondents for damages suffered when their baby died during confinement on 9 August 2005 at the Dora Nginza Hospital, Port Elizabeth. The applicants allege that their baby died as a result of the negligence of medical practitioners and/or medical personnel in the employ of the first respondent. A litigant who wishes to institute action against an organ of the State or its employees is required to give notice in writing of such intention. Section 3(1) and (2) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act No. 40 of 2002 provides that no legal proceedings for the recovery of a
2 2 debt may be instituted against an organ of State, such as the first respondent, unless notice in writing of such intention has been given within six months from the date on which the debt became due. The notice must briefly set out the facts giving rise to the debt and such particulars thereof as are within the knowledge of the litigant. The object of these provisions is to ensure that the organ of State be informed within reasonable time of an intention to hold it liable for damages, sustained as a result of default or negligence of any of its officers, to enable it to investigate the circumstances and to be placed in a position to determine whether it should settle the claim or prepare its case to resist it. It is common cause that the applicants only notified the respondents of their intended action on 10 August 2006, approximately one year after the delivery and death of their baby, which was some six months late in terms of the Act. A Court may, however, grant an application for condonation for the failure to serve the notice as aforesaid if the Court is satisfied that the debt has not been extinguished by prescription, that good cause exists for the failure by the litigant, and that the organ of State was not unreasonably prejudiced by the failure to give notice within the prescribed period. The applicants launched the instant main application for condonation for noncompliance with the Act on 4 October The respondents filed a notice of opposition to the application and filed their opposing affidavit timeously on 22
3 3 November Only on 12 November 2007, grossly out of time, the applicants filed extensive replying affidavits. On 3 March 2008 the applicants launched an interlocutory application for condonation for the late filing of their replying affidavits. On 5 March 2008 the respondents filed a notice of opposition to the interlocutory application. In reaction to allegations made in replying affidavits the respondents attorney served a Rule 35(12) Notice on the applicants attorneys on 11 March 2008 to produce the extensive hospital records and other documentation referred to in the replying affidavits. On 19 March 2008 the applicants attorneys responded to the aforesaid Rule 35(12) Notice by serving on the respondents attorneys the original hospital records including clinical and nursing notes. In a subsequent affidavit the second applicant now admits that she has always been in possession of the original hospital file. She took it when she was discharged. She had copies made of the whole content of approximately fifty five pages of the hospital file and handed it to her attorney whereupon the Notice in terms of section 3(1) and (2) of the Act was given to the respondents. The fact that applicants had been in possession of the original hospital records was concealed from the respondents and it only came to light in response to the Rule 35(12) Notice. The Notice in terms of section 3(1)(a) of Act No. 40 of 2002 dated 10 August 2006 reads as follows: Ons instruksies behels dat Mev. Van Vuuren op ongeveer 8 Augustus 2005 opgeneem en gehospitaliseer is te die Dora Nginza
4 4 Hospitaal vir die bevalling en geboorte van hulle baba. Die baba is inderdaad op 9 Augustus 2005 te die Dora Nginza Hospitaal dood gebore, alternatiewelik het die baba kort na geboorte gesterf. Ons instruksies is voorts dat die afsterwe van ons kliënte se baba in geheel te wyte was aan die nalatige optrede van die mediese praktisyn(s) en/of mediese personeel wie Mev. Van vuuren sowel as die baba behandel het tydens die bevallingsproses en/of tydens die daaropvolgende nasorg. (sic) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the second applicant s founding affidavit reads as follows: Ek is op 8 Augustus 2005 opgeneem en gehospitaliseer te die Dora Nginza Hospitaal vir die bevalling en gebore van my en die Eerste Applikant se baba ( hierin verder na verwys as die baba ). Die baba is inderdaad op 9 Augustus 2005 te die Dora Nginza Hospitaal dood gebore, alternatiewelik het die baba kort na geboorte gesterf. Ek is respekvol die mening toegedaan dat die afsterwe van die baba in geheel te wyte was aan die nalatige optrede van die mediese praktisyn(s) en/of mediese personeel wie my sowel as die baba behandel het tydens die bevallingsproses en/of tydens die daaropvolgende nasorg. (sic) The second respondent, Dr Aydin Vehbi, filed an opposing affidavit. He states that he has searched high and low in an effort to trace the relevant hospital file dealing with the admission of the second applicant to the hospital on 8 August 2008 but cannot trace such file. He specifically states that he did not know if the file is in possession of the applicants or their attorneys. The only relevant records that he was able to trace were the following: 1. A computer print out relating to attendances of the second applicant
5 5 at the hospital s Ante Natal Clinic op 20 April 2005, her earlier admission to the hospital on 28 June 2005 and her final admission to the hospital for the birth of her baby on 8 August Cryptic notes regarding the second applicant s attendance at the Ante Natal Clinic on 20 April The hospital records relating to the admission of the second applicant to the hospital on 28 June 2005 with abdominal pain. 4. The admissions register for the night of 8/9 August The theatre register for the night of 8/9 August Dr Jonray Kevin Leeching was involved with the Caesarean section performed on the second applicant. He had some independent recollection of her admission to the hospital and her subsequent stillborn baby. He can remember that it was noticed when the Caesarean section was performed that the uterus had ruptured and that the foetus was dead. The foetus was nevertheless immediately handed over to the Paediatric Department for attempts at resuscitation. More than a year later, in their replying affidavits, the applicants now say that the baby had not died during delivery or during post natal treatment. The second applicant states that it is correct that her uterus ruptured shortly prior to the performance of the Caesarean section. She further admits that her baby had died prior to the Caesarean section. I have referred above to the fact that the applicants only notified the
6 6 respondents of their intended action some six months late. I also referred to the fact that the applicants should have filed their replying affidavit within ten court days of the filing of the respondents opposing affidavits on 22 November The applicants could and should have asked the respondents for a reasonable extension of time within which to file their replying affidavits. It is the respondents case that such a request would have been favourably considered by the respondents attorneys. No request for an extension of time was made by the applicants. The only other alternative open to the applicants was to apply to this court for an extension of time within which to file their replying affidavits in terms of Uniform Rule 27(1). Rule 27(1) requires good cause to be shown. If good cause is shown the Court has a wide discretion which must in principle be exercised with regard also to the merits of the matter seen as a whole. It is also required that an applicant should file an affidavit satisfactorily explaining the delay which led to the non compliance with the relevant rule. When there has been a long delay the defaulting party is required to satisfy the Court that the relief sought should be granted, especially where, as in the instant case, the applicant is dominus litis. The applicant for any such relief must at least furnish an explanation of his default sufficiently full to enable the Court to understand how it really came about and to assess his conduct and motives (Silver v Ozen Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd 1954 (2) SA 345 (A) at ). The applicants set out in the founding affidavits for condonation the reasons for delay as follows; firstly that the offices of the applicant s attorneys were closed during the
7 7 period 15 December 2006 to 10 January No mention was made of the period between 22 November 2006, when the opposing affidavits had been filed, and 15 December The applicant further states that during January and February 2007 the contents of the founding affidavit and the various opposing affidavits were perused as the opposed affidavit contained various new issues of an involved medico legal nature. This is absolute nonsense. There was no reason to study and peruse the applicants founding affidavits. That was already signed by the end of September By September 2006 the second applicant had already been in possession of the hospital records for more than a year with copies thereof in possession of her attorney for more than two months. The respondents opposing affidavits, which were filed timeously, to a large extent was based on speculation and inferences with only one medical officer remembering a ruptured uterus. Only on 22 February 2007 was a letter directed on behalf of the applicants to an expert, Dr du Toit, who, after a telephonic consultation on 26 February 2005, submitted his report four days later on 1 March That was made available to counsel only on 13 March A consultation between Dr du Toit and counsel was only scheduled for 16 April According to the applicants her legal representatives had difficulty in preparing replying affidavits due to the fact that the respondents in their opposing affidavits addressed issues that were both new and of an involved medico legal nature. I have already dealt with that. Another consultation was arranged only for 11 July Counsel prepared a draft replying affidavit which was e mailed to
8 8 the applicants attorneys who supplemented it on 16 July 2007 and returned it to counsel. A misunderstanding then arose between the attorney and counsel with the one thinking that the other was settling the final draft of the affidavit. That misunderstanding was resolved somewhere during October 2007 whereupon the replying affidavit was settled by counsel during the first week of November 2007 but only filed some time after 12 November. That is the day on which the affidavits were commissioned. On the facts set out by the applicants they have failed to show good cause for the inordinate delay of approximately one year before filing their replying affidavits. In her founding affidavit to the interlocutory application the second applicant states that it had throughout been her intention to reply to the opposing affidavits filed by the respondents. If that is the case the question should be asked why nothing had been done from 22 November 2006 when the respondents opposing affidavits were filed until 15 December when the applicants attorneys offices were closed. The replying affidavits should in terms of the rule have been filed by then. It was submitted by the second applicant that she has good prospects of succeeding with her intended civil action against the respondents. In this regard she referred to the submissions made in her founding affidavit as well as her replying affidavits. I agree with the submission on behalf of the respondents that the applicants should have made the minimum of averments to demonstrate that they have an actionable cause against the respondents. In her founding affidavit she stated that she formed an opinion that the death of her baby was caused by the negligent actions of the second respondents personnel tydens die bevallingsproses en/of tydens die daaropvolgende nasorg. In her replying affidavit the second applicant now says that the baby
9 9 had not died during delivery or during post natal treatment, but in fact at some time prior to delivery as a result of an intra uteral rupture. I agree with the submission on behalf of the respondents that the mere opinion of the second applicant as set out in her founding affidavit and the complete lack of detail as to the applicants alleged cause of action do not pass muster for purposes of an application for condonation in terms of the Act. The second applicant furthermore alleges that the negligence of the relevant medical personnel is evident from the answering affidavits. That is simply not true. The second applicant further falsely contended that she had never been informed that she had to be booked for an elective Caesarean section and that she was never informed that she needed to be monitored regularly in between. It is, however, clear from the ante natal records that she was told exactly that. It is further clear that the applicants were not honest and open towards the Court. In spite of the fact that the respondents were alleging prejudice on account of the fact that the hospital records could not be traced, the applicants, whilst in possession of the original records, kept completely quiet about that fact and failed to return the hospital records to the respondents. It was only after the Rule 35(12) Notice had been served on the applicants that they were compelled to return the records. To make things worse, in her replying affidavit the second applicant castigated the respondents for losing her hospital record, well knowing that she had taken it.
10 10 Both applications on behalf of the applicants were applications for condonation. A full and frank disclosure should be made of all relevant facts. A satisfactory and a full explanation should be given as to why the applicants have not complied with the Act and with the Rules. Good cause should be shown and the absence of unreasonable prejudice to the respondents should be demonstrated. In my view the applicants failed to do that. The statement by the second applicant that she did not know that she could claim from the respondents for the death of the foetus should be approached with a lot of suspicion. Why did she take the hospital records and, in particular, why did she not reveal the fact that she had all along been in possession of the originals? The applicants have made themselves guilty of unconscionable conduct. In the process they compounded prejudice suffered by the respondents. Furthermore, the applicants have not demonstrated any causal connection between the death of the foetus prior to birth and any damage allegedly suffered by them. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that I should make a special costs order against the applicants. I seriously considered that. Such a costs order can be justified, but from the papers placed before me it is clear to me that the respondents would not get any benefit from that. The applicants are simply not in a position to pay a punitive costs order. In the result, the applicants application in terms of section 3(4) of Act No. 40
11 11 of 2002 is dismissed with costs. J C H JANSEN JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA
V IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA Not reportable In the matter between - CASE NO: 2015/54483 HENDRIK ADRIAAN ROETS Applicant And MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER
More informationMATTHEUS GERHARDUS KRUGER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: MATTHEUS GERHARDUS KRUGER
More informationJUDGMENT: 8 NOVEMBER [1] This is an application by the Defendant to permit the joinder of Dr. Smith (the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No: 21453/10 In the matter between: MICHAEL DAVID VAN DEN HEEVER In his representative capacity on behalf of Pierre van den Heever
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA RANDBURG CASE NUMBER: LCC 15R/04 In chambers: MOLOTO J MAGISTRATE S COURT CASE NUMBER: 95/02 Decided on: 3 March 2004 In the review proceedings in the case between:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CHRISTOPHER EDWARD MARTIN DAMON FOR THE APPLICANT : ADV.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) REPORTABLE Case No: 1601/09 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER EDWARD MARTIN DAMON Applicant and SAHRON DAMON BFP ATTORNEYS THE
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no. JR 2422/08 In the matter between: GEORGE TOBA Applicant and MOLOPO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] Apart from an order of costs against the respondents on the attorney client
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO.: 871/2011 Date heard: 23 June 2011 Date issued: In the matter between: DANILE MILI Applicant and MATRON, FORT BEAUFORT HOSPITAL DIRECTOR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA) CASE NO.: 943/2007. In the matter between: And
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA) In the matter between: THABO MTHEMBU CASE NO.: 943/2007 Plaintiff And MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION, EASTERN CAPE BUYISILE ZOKO
More informationReproduced by Data Dynamics in terms of Government Printers' Copyright Authority No dated 24 September 1993
2 No. 417 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 2 AUGUST 17 GENERAL EXPLANATORY NOTE: [ ] Words in bold type in square brackets indicate omissions from existing enactments. Words underlined with a solid line indicate insertions
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007. In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007 In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN BEATRIX OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE First Applicant Second Applicant versus OOSTHUYSEN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) MICHAEL ANDREW VAN AS JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 26 AUGUST 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO: 10589/16 MICHAEL ANDREW VAN AS Applicant And NEDBANK LIMITED Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 26 AUGUST
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN PIETER WILLEM DU PLOOY OOS VRYSTAAT KAAP BEDRYF BEPERK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between Case No: 5277/2014 PIETER WILLEM DU PLOOY APPLICANT and OOS VRYSTAAT KAAP BEDRYF BEPERK RESPONDENT CORAM: NAIDOO,
More informationN[...] E[...] N[...] obo T[...]...PLAINTIFF DR E M SEKWABE...1 ST DEFENDANT. THE MEDICAL MANAGER OF LIFE ST. DOMINICS...2 nd DEFENDANT JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION
More informationIn the matter between: -
IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED. In the matter between: - CASE NO.: 2015/80133 JEREMIAH PHEHELLO
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE ST ATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN HEARD ON: 2 FEBRUARY 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE ST ATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Case No.: 51092016 FIDELITY
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. Nu-Shelf Investments CC Applicant. Strinivasaen Krishna Bangaar First Respondent
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 13703/06 13704/06 In the matter between Nu-Shelf Investments CC Applicant and Strinivasaen Krishna Bangaar First Respondent The
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. LESLIE MILDENHALL TROLLIP t/a PROPERTY SOLUTIONS. HANCKE, J et FISCHER, AJ
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the appeal between:- Appeal No. : A297/10 JOHANNES STEPHANUS LATEGAN MARLET LATEGAN First Appellant Second Appellant and LESLIE MILDENHALL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No.: 1116/2006. In the case between: ALL GOOD THINGS 149 CC.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the case between: Case No.: 1116/2006 ALL GOOD THINGS 149 CC Plaintiff and WASCON SIVIEL CC WOUTER WASSERMAN 2 nd Defendant
More informationPetroleum Products and Energy Act 13 of 1990 section 4A(2)(b)
MADE IN TERMS OF section 4A(2) Regulations for Arbitration Procedures under the Petroleum Products and Energy Act, 1990 Government Notice 93 of 2003 (GG 2970) came into force on date of publication: 29
More informationNOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) JUDGMENT
1 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) 2008 Case no. Judgment reserved:02 June 2008 Judgment handed down: 06 June In the Ex-Parte application of DALE BARRATT
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) APPEAL CASE NO : A5044/09 DATE: 18/08/2010 In the matter between:
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) APPEAL CASE NO : A5044/09 DATE: 18/08/2010 In the matter between: HENRY GEORGE DAVID COCHRANE Appellant (Respondent a quo) and THE
More informationJUDGMENT. 1 I am required to decide the disputes disclosed by the defendant's. special plea of prescription raised in defence to the plaintiffs claim.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 5664/2011 In the matter between: EDWARD THOMPSON Plaintiff and CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Defendant JUDGMENT Tuchten
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
P a g e 1 Reportable Circulate to Judges Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley) Case Nr: 826/2010 Date heard:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG,
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT PORT ELIZABERTH
REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT PORT ELIZABERTH In the matter between: CASE NO: P513/08 KOUGA MUNICIPALITY APPLICANT and SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BARGAINING COUNCIL COMMISSIONER
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: 588/2007 THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Appellant and AUGUSTUS JOHN DE WITT Respondent Neutral citation: Minister of Safety and Security v De Witt
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 505/15 In the matter between: KAVITA RAMPERSAD Applicant and COMMISSIONER RICHARD BYRNE N.O. First Respondent COMMISSION FOR
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO: 03/03539 DATE:26/10/2011 In the matter between: TECMED (PTY) LIMITED MILFORD, MICHAEL VOI HARRY BEGERE, WERNER HURWITZ,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO: 563/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO: 563/2008 In the matter between: NONTWAZANA MANGQO Plaintiff and MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, EASTERN CAPE Defendant JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO:83409/2015 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... DATE
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT BELLS BANK NUMBER ONE (PTY) LTD
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: C144/08 In the matter between: BELLS BANK NUMBER ONE (PTY) LTD Applicant and THE NATIONAL UNION OF MINE WORKERS
More information;>x/;/:9.1.% d~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case number: 13770/2018 Date: IDHWEBBCC APPLICANT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case number: 13770/2018 Date: DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: Y~NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER~~ ~/NO 1 ;>x/;/:9.1.% d~ (~;{~;
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Plaintiff. Defendant
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE
More informationREUBEN ITUMELENG TODI MEC FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: 751/2005 In the matter between:- REUBEN ITUMELENG TODI Plaintiff and MEC FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT First Defendant OF NORTH WEST RESPONSIBLE FOR HEALTH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 14231/14 In the matter between: PETER McHENDRY APPLICANT and WYNAND LOUW GREEFF FIRST RESPONDENT RENSCHE GREEFF SECOND RESPONDENT
More informationEASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES JUDGMENT. 1] This is an application to have the respondent s name struck off the roll
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No.: 2232/2011 Date heard: 23 March 2012 Date delivered: 20 August 2012 EASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES Applicant
More informationEASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. 4187/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. 4187/2015 In the matter between: ABSA BANK LIMITED Applicant and THOMAS JAMES COOMBS Respondent JUDGMENT Bloem J. [1] On 26
More informationIN THE GAUTENG DIVISION HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
1 IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Case Number: 31971/2011 Coram: Molefe J Heard: 21 July 2014 Delivered: 11 September 2014 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST
More informationCIVIL PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR THE REGIONAL COURTS IN SOUTH AFRICA
FOR THE REGIONAL COURTS IN SOUTH AFRICA Page 1 INTRODUCTION The Civil Practice Directives deal essentially with the daily functioning of the courts, court- and case-flow management and intend to introduce
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) PETER MOHLABA. and WINSTON NKOPODI JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: Case No.: Civil Appeal 3/2003 PETER MOHLABA and WINSTON NKOPODI JUDGMENT HENDRICKS AJ: INTRODUCTION This is
More information1] The applicant on 30 May 2002 applied for an order. winding up the respondent provisionally on the basis. that it is unable to pay its debts.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 4634/02 In the matter between: COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY (PTY) LTD Applicant And TECHNOBURN (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT:
More informationRULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE LABOUR COURT. as promulgated by. Government Notice 1665 of 14 October 1996.
RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE LABOUR COURT as promulgated by Government Notice 1665 of 14 October 1996 as amended by Government Notice R961 in Government Gazette 18142 of 11 July 1997 [with
More informationHILMER WALTER OSTLING N.O.
In the High Court of South Africa (South Eastern Cape Local Division) (Port Elizabeth High Court) Case No 565/07 Delivered: In the matter between HILMER WALTER OSTLING N.O. Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) JUDGMENT. The defendant applies to court for an order in terms of which the plaintiff is
I IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) Case number: 56513/2008 Date: 31 March 2011 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1} REPORTABLE: Y S?NO (2} OF INTEREST TO OTHERS jy^esi^xk/no
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION : MTHATHA CASE NO. 2930/13 N. S. PLAINTIFF
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 339/09 MEC FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY Appellant (EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE) and TEMBA MTOKWANA Respondent Neutral citation: 2010) CORAM: MEC v Mtokwana
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. SA SOLIDARITY obo MT BOOI & 22 OTHERS. TECHNISTRUT (PTY) LTD t/a SELATI ROOFS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS381/12 SA SOLIDARITY obo MT BOOI & 22 OTHERS Applicants and TECHNISTRUT (PTY) LTD t/a SELATI ROOFS Respondent Delivered: 15 July
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) DELETE WHICHUVL:?! it; (D F. .(2; Or INTEREST TO O (3) REVISED.
(S//2/2CD/O IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Case No: 11213A/2009 DELETE WHICHUVL:?! it; NO In the matter between: (D F.(2; Or INTEREST TO O (3) REVISED. : if W GREEN-CHEM
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, AT DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D477/11 In the matter between:- HOSPERSA First Applicant E. JOB Second Applicant and CHITANE SOZA
More informationHIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- Case Number : 99/2014 THE STATE and RETHABILE NTSHONYANE THABANG NTSHONYANE CORAM: DAFFUE, J et MURRAY, AJ JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) CASE NO: 2159/97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) CASE NO: 2159/97 In the matter between: LESLIE NEIL SACKSTEIN N.O. FLORIS JOHANNES LORDAN N.O FIRST PLAINTIFF SECOND PLAINTIFF and THE DIRECTOR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) CA&R No: Review No: Date Delivered: In the matter between: JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) CA&R No: Review No: 020558 Date Delivered: In the matter between: The State and Nataniel Mondo JUDGMENT PLASKET AJ: [1] On 16 October 2002, the
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] The applicants herein had earlier approached this Court for an order, inter
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH NOT REPORTABLE In the matter between: ANTHONY LAURISTON BIGGS RIDGE FARM CC Case no: 3323/2013 Date heard: 6.3.2014 Date
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT)
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (1) REPORTABLE: Y^S/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES^/NO (3) REVISED (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) Case number: 70273/2009 Date: 5 May
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JR 2386/15; J 323/16 In the matter between MEC DEPT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM, MPUMALANGA and NEHAWU obo
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KRAMER WEIHMANN AND JOUBERT INC.
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case No: 3818/2011 KRAMER WEIHMANN AND JOUBERT INC. Plaintiff and SOUTH AFRICAN COMMERCIAL CATERING AND ALLIED WORKERS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CA 301/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: MICHELE COLAVITA APPLICANT AND SAMSTOCK PORTFOLIO PROPERTIES (PTY LIMITED RESPONDENT JUDGMENT FOR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- Case No. : 2631/2013 JACQUES VLOK Applicant versus SILVER CREST TRADING 154 (PTY) LTD MERCANTILE BANK LTD ENGEN
More informationRSA AARTAPPELSAAD BEURS (EDMS) BPK WELDAAD BOERDERY (EDMS) BPK. [1] This is an application for provisional sentence for the amount
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case No.: 3852/2010 RSA AARTAPPELSAAD BEURS (EDMS) BPK Plaintiff and WELDAAD BOERDERY (EDMS) BPK Defendant JUDGEMENT:
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA MINISTER OF HEALTH AND OTHERS TREATMENT ACTION CAMPAIGN AND OTHERS JUDGMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 9/02 MINISTER OF HEALTH AND OTHERS Appellants versus TREATMENT ACTION CAMPAIGN AND OTHERS Respondents Heard on : 3 April 2002 Decided on : 4 April 2002 Reasons
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ALCATEL LUCENT SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable In the matter between: DANIEL MAFOKO Case no: JR1444/11 Applicant and ALCATEL LUCENT SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD LARVOL JEAN-PHILLIPE First
More informationGovernment Gazette Staatskoerant
Please note that most Acts are published in English and another South African official language. Currently we only have capacity to publish the English versions. This means that this document will only
More informationJUDGMENT THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 07897/2016. In the matter between: SAPOR RENTALS (PTY) LIMITED
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 07897/2016 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 23 February 2017.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter
More informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE STAATSKOERANT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA GOVERNMENT GAZETTE STAATSKOERANT VAN DIE REPUBLIEK VAN SUID-AFRIKA Registered at the Post Ofice as a Newspaper As n Nuusblad by die Poskantoor Geregistreer VOL. 402 CAPE TOWN,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Appeal number: A1/2016
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 2813/2010 In the matter between: HENDRIK JOHANNES VAN JAARSVELD HENDRIK JOHANNES VAN JAARSVELD N.O EMMERENTIA FREDERIKA
More information(1 December to date) CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996
(1 December 2003 - to date) CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996 (Gazette No. 17678, Notice No. 2083 dated 18 December 1996. Commencement date: 4 February 1997 unless otherwise indicated)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBELEY) JUDGMENT
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: 1 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBELEY) Case No: 183/2013 HEARD ON: 26/08/2014 DELIVERED:
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: JR 1231/12 In the matter between: PAUL REFILOE MAHAMO Applicant And CMC di RAVENNA SOUTH AFRICA
More informationTHE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO.: 4019/2007 Date heard: 19 April 2012 Date handed down: 3 May 2012 In the matter between: KAY-PEE NTILA ATTORNEYS KP NTILA First Applicant
More informationCHAPTER 559 MENTAL DISEASES
[Cap.559 CHAPTER 559 Ordinances AN ORDINANCE TO MAKF FURTHER AND BRTTFR PROVISION RELATING TO THE CARE AND Nos. 1 of 1873. 3 of 1882, 3 of 1883. 2 of 1889. 13 of 1905. 16 of 1919, 3 of 1940. 13 of 1940.
More informationMEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS JUDGMENT
MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS FORUM : SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE : MALAN AJA CASE NO : 640/06 DATE : 28 NOVEMBER 2007 JUDGMENT Judgement: Malan AJA: [1] This is an appeal with leave of the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 12189/2014 ABSA BANK LIMITED Applicant And RUTH SUSAN HAREMZA Respondent
More informationLAWS OF GUYANA. Medical Practitioners 3 CHAPTER 32:02 MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY PART II
LAWS OF GUYANA Medical Practitioners 3 CHAPTER 32:02 MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART II ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case No: JR941/14 In the matter between: EDCON LIMITED Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. : 3861/2013 In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI Applicant and MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL
More informationEASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: PORT ELIZABETH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 1723/07 Heard on: 17/06/11 Delivered on: 02/08/11 In the matter between: STEVE VORSTER First Applicant MATTHYS JOHANNES
More informationMEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: CA 337/2013 DATE HEARD: 18/8/14 DATE DELIVERED: 22/8/14 REPORTABLE In the matter between: IKAMVA ARCHITECTS CC APPELLANT and MEC FOR
More informationNSIKAYOMUZI GOODMAN GOQO DURBAN SOUTH THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT. 1] The applicant approached this court on the basis of urgency, ex-parte
1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN NOT REPORTABLE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case no. 6094/10 In the matter between: NSIKAYOMUZI GOODMAN GOQO PLAINTIFF and JOHANNES GEORGE KRUGER N.O. DALES BROTHERS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Date: 21/08/2008 Case No: 21803/2004 UNREPORTABLE In the case between: RIENA CHARLES Applicant And PREMIER OF THE PROVINCE OF MPULALANGA
More informationDEPARTEMENT VAN OPENBARE WERKE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 7382/08 In the matter between:- RUWACON (EDMS) BPK Applicant versus DEPARTEMENT VAN OPENBARE WERKE Respondent CORAM: H.M. MUSI,
More informationPlaintiff JUDGMENT. was the driver of a motorcycle which the collided with a motor vehicle, driven at the time by a Mrs
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION,
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. J504/99 In the matter between: MACEBO MATTHEWS MAFUYEKA Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION SALEEM SEEDAT
More informationMZWANDILE TONNY CEDRIC BOBOTYANA JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. 174/2017 and 184/2017 In the matter between: MZWANDILE TONNY CEDRIC BOBOTYANA Applicant and NEDBANK LIMITED Respondent JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: ^ES*JjEf.
More informationUITSPRAAK IN DIE NOORD GAUTENG HOE HOF PRETORIA (REPUBL1EK VAN SUID-AFRIKA) ) seres SAAKNOMMER: 38798/2006. In die saak tussen: Applikant
IN DIE NOORD GAUTENG HOE HOF PRETORIA (REPUBL1EK VAN SUID-AFRIKA) In die saak tussen: VERONICA KRETSCHMER SAAKNOMMER: 38798/2006 Applikant en 3ROLL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (EDMS) 3PK (REGISTRASIENOMMER 199S/C15132/07)
More information0:1~,:~ REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE WGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DMSION, PRETORIA. Heard on 14 August In the matter between: Applicant
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE WGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DMSION, PRETORIA 0:1~,:~ (1) REPORTABLE: y;t{/no (2) OF INTEREST TO OlHER JUDGES: Yli/S'I NO CASE N0.:27337/2015 Heard on 14 August 2017
More informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$15.20 WINDHOEK - 7 November 2014 No. 5608 CONTENTS Page GOVERNMENT NOTICES No. 227 Amendment of Rules of High Court of Namibia: High Court Act, 1990... 1
More informationBIKEBUDDI INTERNATIONAL LTD. BIKEBUDI HOLDINGS (PTY) LIMITED Respondent J U D G M E N T
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: CASE NO: 3726/2011 Date Heard: 9 December 2011 Date Delivered: 13 December 2011 BIKEBUDDI INTERNATIONAL LTD Applicant
More informationBERMUDA MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT : 38
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 1950 1950 : 38 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 5AA 5AB 5A 5B 6 7 7A 7B 8 9 10 11 12 12AA 12A 13 13A 14 15 16 17 PRELIMINARY Interpretation Unqualified
More informationCIVIL PRACTICE DIRECTIVES REGIONAL COURTS IN SOUTH AFRICA
FOR THE REGIONAL COURTS IN SOUTH AFRICA 2016 Third Revision INTRODUCTION The Civil Practice Directives embraces the constitutional principle that everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff. ANDRé ALROY FILLIS First Defendant. MARILYN ELSA FILLIS Second Defendant JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NOT REPORTABLE EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH Case No.: 1796/10 Date Heard: 3 August 2010 Date Delivered:17 August 2010 In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT BERNARD ANTONY MARROW
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: P229/11 In the matter between: BERNARD ANTONY MARROW Applicant And COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
More information(3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;... <'
CASE N0:768/2013 DELETE WHJCHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: vpo (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: y(ino (3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;....
More informationNATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE ROAD FREIGHT INDUSTRY RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PROCESSES AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NBCRFI DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Ver. 10/06 NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE ROAD FREIGHT INDUSTRY RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PROCESSES AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NBCRFI DISPUTE RESOLUTION In accordance with the Exemptions and Dispute
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHASWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE NO : 265/02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHASWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In thematterbetween: TSHEPO JOHN MAAGA APPLICANT and BRIAN ST CLAIR COOPER NO BLESSING GCABASHE NO FERDINAND ZONDAGH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION) REPORTABLE CASE NO: 04/9610 In the matter between: DITEDU. DINEO ROSLYN Plaintiff and TAYOB, YOUSHA Defendant JUDGMENT GOLDSTEIN J: [1]
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN. Case no. 173/2018 Date heard: 29/11/18 Date delivered: 8/1/19 Reportable
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN Case no. 173/2018 Date heard: 29/11/18 Date delivered: 8/1/19 Reportable In the matter between: ARTHUR FRANS GROOTBOOM MUHAMMED RAMLAN
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA RANDBURG CASE NUMBER: LCC 81R/01 In chambers: Gildenhuys AJ MAGISTRATE S COURT CASE NUMBER: 8448/2001 Decided on: 06 September 2001 In the review proceedings in
More information