IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. EASTERN CAPE DIVISION GRAHAMSTOWN. CASE NO. 193/2010 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: versus JUDGMENT MAGEZA AJ:
|
|
- Amie Gladys Matthews
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. EASTERN CAPE DIVISION GRAHAMSTOWN. CASE NO. 193/2010 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: TOMMY LAMONT TOMMY S ELECTRICAL CC FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT versus ROCKLANDS POULTRY CROWN CHICKENS (PTY) LTD. ROCKLANDS POULTRY (PTY) LTD. RON FARAGHER UNITED CHIX (PTY LTD. MURRAY PHILLIPS FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND RESPONDENT THIRD RESPONDENT FOURTH RESPONDENT FIFTH RESPONDENT SIXTH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT MAGEZA AJ: 1
2 [1] Appellants herein (as Plaintiff s in the Court a quo), sued the present six Respondents as well as three other Defendants (not party to the present Appeal) for damages arising from injuries sustained as a result of an electrical shock. [For the purposes of convenience, I will refer throughout this judgment to Appellants as Plaintiffs and the Respondents as Defendants]. The parties agreed before the trial commenced to have the question of liability decided independently of the quantum of damages. In the proceedings to decide the issue of liability the Defendants counsel, at the end of the Plaintiffs case, applied for absolution from the instance. This was granted with costs and the six Respondents, as Defendants in the main matter, were granted absolution from the instance. Appellants (Plaintiffs) now appeal this order. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. [2] Briefly,the facts material to this appeal are that the two Plaintiffs instituted action against the nine Defendants for damages pursuant to injuries suffered as a result of an electrical shock while engaged in repair work on power lines on an electrical grid falling under the jurisdiction of the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality. The Plaintiffs allege that the sole cause of the incident was the negligent conduct of one or more of the nine Defendants in causing the installation of a private electricity generating plant, connecting the same to the main municipal electrical grid without properly isolating its current therefrom and that Defendants failed to avoid the incident when by the exercise of reasonable care, they could and should have done so. [3] The Second Defendant trades as Rocklands Poultry, the First Defendant. The Third Defendant is a shell company which no longer exists. Fourth defendant, Ron Faragher was an employee of Second Defendant. Sixth Defendant, Murray Phillips was employed by the Fifth Defendant who conducts business as a chicken breeder and broiler as does the First and Second Defendants. [4] The collective plea of the afore-going defendants is that Fourth Defendant, on behalf of
3 all of them, employed the services of the Eighth Defendant (Van der Touw) as an independent contractor, to provide the supply of electricity by availing them an electrical generator at a time when the municipal electrical supply had been disrupted. They allege in their plea that the Eighth Defendant delivered and installed the electrical generator on the Second Defendant s property and that the Eighth Defendant took certain steps to operate the private generator and did not act subject to their instructions. [5] Eighth Defendant in turn pleaded that he acted for and on behalf of the Ninth Defendant who had leased the electrical generating plant to the First Defendant. He admits only to having delivered the electrical generator and denies having installed, operated or caused it to be installed or operated in any manner on the property. [6] Plaintiff called several witnesses including a Mr CG Hopewell who testified as an expert electrical engineer. He confirmed that in his view the electrical shock suffered by Plaintiff emanated from a private electrical generator which had been installed and unlawfully connected onto the public municipal electrical grid on which plaintiff was, at the material time, engaged in effecting repairs. This was confirmed by witnesses Smith and Sher who had attended to the emergency together with plaintiff. The evidence detailed that connecting a generator could, by law and on considerations of safety, only be by permission of the municipality. That in the instant case, not only should it not have been connected to the grid but that this conduct was so unusual that Hopewell, in his more than two decades of experience, had neither heard of nor experienced such an incident. [7] It was conceded that whilst it was not unreasonable for Plaintiff to have assumed that such an illegal connection did not exist, Plaintiff should, under the circumstances, have exercised proper and adequate care and should have earthed the circuit differently prior to undertaking work thereon. Without embarking on an extensive analysis of the overall evidence, much of which was of a technical nature, the broad thrust of the testimony of the other witnesses mentioned supported these views. They also readily conceded that plaintiff could have been more cautious in the circumstances. Neither the Plaintiffs nor any of its witnesses had independent knowledge of who had connected the electrical generator to the overhead 3
4 municipal powerlines. [8] At the close of the Plaintiff s case, an application on behalf of First, Second, Fourth, to Sixth Defendants was brought by Mr Eksteen, for absolution from the instance. In support of the application counsel relied on the following: a) the failure to obtain written permission to install the generator did not on its own constitute negligence. Similarly, that failure to comply with the South African Bureau of Standards code of practice did not constitute negligence. b) there was at that stage no evidence that (First, Second, Fourth to Sixth) Defendants had caused a private electricity generator to be installed and operated without isolating the electrical supply from the municipal line on at least one point thereof. c) there was no evidence that the said Defendants had failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the incident that occurred. d) Plaintiff had by way of introducing into evidence the affidavit of Sixth Defendant, conclusively proved that the Eight Defendant had arrived at the premises and coupled the generator to the main grid and municipal powerline. That having been engaged as an
5 independent contractor the First, Second, Fourth to Sixth Defendants could not be held liable for his conduct as an independent contractor. [9] Mr Euijen for the third party aligned himself with these submissions. In support of the last contention, Mr Euijen submitted that it must be concluded from the evidence that it was Eighth Defendant who had connected the generator in question. [10] In its findings, the Court, after a lengthy evaluation of the evidence, summed up its observations as follows: The plaintiffs also placed several discovered documents before court which were contained in bundle C. The most significant of these documents with regard to this application for absolution, was an affidavit deposed to by the sixth defendant, Mr Murray Phillips, on 28 April The affidavit was deposed to for purposes of the enquiry held by the Municipality to determine the cause of the accident. Therein he stated on oath, that because of the power failure which lasted for ten days, and the dire consequences it would have for the poultry on their farm, the fourth defendant, Ron Farrager, contacted the eighth defendant, Mr Van der Touw, to supply and install a generator. On 11 July 2002 he said, Mr Van der Touw coupled a generator to the distribution board of the farm s electricity supply. According to this testimony, the eighth and ninth defendants were indeed responsible for the installation of the generator. After the generator was switched on, there were problems and Mr Van der Touw did further work on it. There-after it was switched on for a further 30 minutes. Because it did not work properly, it was switched off again. Shortly thereafter, the fourth defendant, Ron Farrager, phoned to advise that a municipal employee had been electrocuted somewhere along the municipal supply line and that the generator 5
6 should be switched off. In his affidavit, Mr Phillips further said that Van der Touw then removed the generator and left. This evidence on oath is at variance with the pleadings of the eighth and ninth defendants. It seems most unlikely that the eighth and ninth defendants would not install their own generator, or at least oversee its installation. and further: All the evidence led by the plaintiffs conformed with the pleadings of the chicken farmers. The only way in which these defendants can possibly be held liable is if the plaintiffs could establish that one, or all of them as principal, could be held liable for the actions of the eighth and ninth defendants as independent contractors, because they did not exercise reasonable care. and finally that: The evidence presented by the plaintiffs, does not support the submission that the first, second and fourth to sixth defendants did not exercise reasonable care. The undisputed evidence was that because of the shortage of electricity they leased a generator. To this end they obtained the services of the eighth and ninth defendants, known in the area, (particularly the eighth defendant) as experts in this field and who operated as independent contractors, installing and leasing generators when requested to do so. The generator in question was their property. The affidavit of Mr Phillips, deposed to almost six years ago, was that the eighth defendant installed the generator. That is the more probable scenario. The chicken farmers therefore discharged their duty of care by leasing and delegating the installation
7 of the generator to the eighth and ninth defendants. [11] Now where an Appeal Court evaluates whether or not to allow an appeal against an order granting absolution at the close of the plaintiff s case, it must, as far as is possible, avoid expressing views that may prematurely curb the free exercise by the trial Court of its judgment on the facts when Defendant s case has been closed. see the comments of Schreiner JA in Gafoor v UnieVersekeringadviseures (Edms) Bpk 1961 (1) AD 335 at 340 D- E. [12] Several factors relating to the affidavit of Sixth Defendant are cause for concern when regard is had to them at the stage of an application for absolution from the instance. Clearly the affidavit weighed heavily in the Court s mind in assessing the merits of the application The first of these factors is that Rule 38 (2) of the Rules of this Court anticipates that witnesses in action proceedings are to be examined viva voce. Where this is not possible and on good cause shown, then a Court may direct the taking of the same by way of an affidavit and on such conditions as may seem meet. The proviso to the rule is that where another party reasonably requires that such witness be cross- examined and the deponent is available, then the said evidence shall not be concluded on affidavit. Plaintiff s argument in opposing the application for absolution was based on this that it needed to test the evidence of all the Defendants Rule 37 (6) relating to pre-trial conferences requires that all admissions be made in the pre-trial minute and signed on behalf of each party. I do not understand it to be the case that Plaintiff made an admission and/or an election to rely on the Sixth Defendant s affidavit in this sense or any other stated sense. 7
8 12.3 In addition, the affidavit was made pursuant to a different investigation, one conducted by the municipality in order to attempt to unearth the cause of the incident. It is an affidavit which was not even made for the purposes of the present trial. It is a document discovered by the defendants in support of their plea. Its author happens to be the Sixth Defendant who is equally mired in the dispute the Court is engaged in resolving. The content of the affidavit is the ipse dixit of a Defendant introducing nothing new to the Court other than an allegation already contained in its plea and collectively those of First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Defendants The contents of the affidavit at the stage of the closure of the Plaintiff s case remain untested in light of its contents not having been placed before Court by way of testimony viva voce under oath and the Defendant cross examined thereon. It is not, standing on its own, testimony providing conclusive proof against the Eighth and Ninth Defendants. [13] The further finding that Plaintiff had not followed safety measures and had flouted them resulting in negligence on its part does not exonerate the responsible Defendant(s) and could at best lead to the possibility of contributory negligence on Plaintiff s part. The finding that, on the available evidence, the Defendants had exercised reasonable care appears to be premature in light of the plea of Eighth and NinthDefendants. It is also instructive that the evidence of a vastly experienced engineer such as Hopewell was that whoever had installed the generator could not have been a competent electrician, let alone an expert. This testimony was not gainsaid. THE LEGAL POSITION.
9 [14] The issue which the Court had to decide was whether there was at the close of the Plaintiff s case evidence on which a reasonable man might hold that the defendants were liable. This is the principle set out in Gascoyne v Paul and Hunter, 1917 TPD 170 approved by the Appellate Division (as it then was) in Rex v Shein, 1925 AD 6 at p9. [15] Erasmus, Superior Court Practice B1 292 summarises the position as follows: When absolution from the instance is sought at the close of the plaintiff s case, the test to be applied is not whether the evidence established which would finally be required to be established, but whether there is evidence upon which a court, applying its mind reasonably to such evidence could or might (not should or ought to) find for the plaintiff. It follows that when absolution is asked for at the end of the plaintiff s case, the court must bring to bear upon the evidence not his own but the judgment of a reasonable man. Renouncing for the time being any tendency to exercise a judgment of his own, he is bound to speculate on the conclusion at which a reasonable man of his conception not should, but might, or could arrive. This is the process of reasoning which, however difficult it is to exercise, the law enjoins upon the judicial officer (Myburgh v Kelly 1942 EDL 202 at 206). [16] In Gordon Lloyd Page & Associates v Rivera 2002 (1) SA 88, the Court held that the test is whether there is evidence upon which a Court applying its mind reasonably to such evidence could or might (not should or ought to) find for the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Court therein emphasised that absolution at the end of the Plaintiff s case will in the ordinary course of events nevertheless be granted sparingly, but when the occasion arises a Court should order it in the interests of justice. [17] It seems to me that where a single Defendant is concerned in a matter, applying these principles may be rendered easier than where a number of Defendants are sued jointly, jointly 9
10 and severally or in the alternative. This is what the Court in Mazibuko v Santam Insurance Co. Ltd 1982 (3) SA 125 (A) at 135D-E contemplated where Corbett JA stated, if at the end of the plaintiff s case there is evidence upon which a court applying its mind reasonably, could hold that it had been established that either the one defendant or the other defendant or both of them were legally liable (it being nevertheless uncertain as to which of the alternatives was the correct one), the court should not grant an application for absolution at the suit of either defendant. [18] I agree with these principles and in my view they find application in the facts of the present matter for the reasons already stated. The commentary of Leveson J in K & S Dry Cleaning Equipment v South African Eagle Insurance 1998 (4) SA 456 (W) at 460 E to 461C is also in point. In distinguishing the case before him from that of Colman AJ in Putter v Provincial Insurance Co. Ltd and Another 1963 (4) SA 771 (W), he stated: There at the end of the plaintiff s case, it was apparent that the damage sustained by him in a motor collision, for recovery of which he had sued, had been due to the negligence of one or other of the parties. But it was uncertain even at that stage as to which was responsible for the damage. Colman AJ considered the English decision of Hummerstone and Another v Leary and Another [1921] 2 KB 664 (CA). He went on to make the point that where there is a single Defendant the reservoir of material from which the Plaintiff s case is drawn is exhausted at the end of his case. There can be no further evidence against the Defendant. The only further evidence would run against the Plaintiff and, he said, it would not be in the interests of justice in that event to continue the case. But where there are two Defendants the learned Judge noted that the Court might not be in a position fairly to assume that it has heard all the evidence which is material to a just decision, so that a different rule must apply.
11 [19] I must emphasise that, in this case, the plea of Eighth and Ninth Defendants is at odds with that of the other Defendants. The second set of Defendants seek to rely on the premise that they had engaged Eighth Defendant as an independent contractor from whom they not only collectively sourced the electrical plant but also engaged as an expert to install it. Eighth Defendant denies these averments and only admits to providing the plant without being engaged to install same. Eighth Defendant pleads a clear denial and the totality of the picture as painted by it suggests that the other Defendants either on their own or through someone else, installed the plant and discovered that it was faulty and returned it without invoicing for the same. In light of the fact that the contractual relationship was one between them as the contracting parties, it is natural that they are best placed to shed light on the detail. Plaintiff does not have knowledge of what occurred as between these two sets of Defendants. Absolution at this stage would naturally deprive the Plaintiff the benefit of such evidence. At this stage of the proceedings, it appears to me, the court is not in a position fairly to assume that it has heard all the evidence which is material to a just decision. - Putter v Provincial Insurance Co. Ltd and Another (supra). [20] In the result I make the following order: (a) The appeal succeeds with costs, such costs are ordered to be paid by the Respondents jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved. (b) The order of absolution from the instance is set aside and replaced with the following: The application for absolution from the instance is dismissed with costs. 11
12 P.T. MAGEZA ACTING JUDGE DHLODHLO DJP: I AGREE A.E.B. DHLODHLO DJP DEPUTY JUDGE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH COURT. PILLAY J: I AGREE R. PILLAY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT. HEARD: 03 MAY 2011 DELIVERED: 19 AUGUST 2011
13 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: INSTRUCTING ATTORNEYS: H.J. VAN DER LINDE SC NETTLETONS 118A HIGH STREET GRAHAMSTOWN (046) COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: INSTRUCTING ATTORNEYS: E.A.S. FORD SC NEVILLE BORMAN & BOTHA 22 HILL STREET GRAHAMSTOWN (046)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the case of:- Case Nr: 2826/2012 MARIA ELIZABETH HANGER Plaintiff/Respondent and JOE REGAL 1 st Defendant / 1 st Applicant PETRA
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 information[1] In this case, the defendant applied for absolution from the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) DATE: 22/05/2009 CASE NO: 12677/08 REPORTABLE In the matter between: TSOANYANE: MPHO PLAINTIFF And UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA DEFENDANT
More informationCASE NO: 6084/15. In the matter between: DENEL SOC LIMITED. Applicant. and
Republic of South Africa In the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town) In the matter between: DENEL SOC LIMITED CASE NO: 6084/15 Applicant and PERSONS WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE TO THE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. BLUE CHIP 2 (PTY) LTD t/a BLUE CHIP 49 CEDRICK DEAN RYNEVELDT & 26 OTHERS
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 499/2015 In the matter between: BLUE CHIP 2 (PTY) LTD t/a BLUE CHIP 49 APPELLANT and CEDRICK DEAN RYNEVELDT & 26 OTHERS RESPONDENTS
More informationNELSON MANDELA BAY MUNICIPALITY JUDGMENT. [1] The plaintiff claims compensation in terms of section 12(1) and (2) of the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH Case No.: 3119/2013 Date Heard: 27 November 2017 Date Delivered: 12 December 2017 In the matter between: PENTREE LIMITED Plaintiff
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH. CASE NO: 4305 / 2017 Date heard: 26 June 2018 Date delivered: 31 July 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4305 / 2017 Date heard: 26 June 2018 Date delivered: 31 July 2018 In the matter between JUNE KORKIE JUNE KORKIE N.O. JACK
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 informationJUDGMENT. [1] This is an application in terms of Rule 41 (1) (c) of the Uniform Rules, for the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: 3919/2011 DATE HEARD: 26/04/2012 DATE DELIVERED: 16/05/2012 In the matter between CART BLANCHE MARKETING CC APPLICANT and
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 informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, GRAHAMSTOWN
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, GRAHAMSTOWN NOT REPORTABLE PARTIES: MBANJWA INC AND ALBANY AUTO TRIMMERS Registrar: CA 127/09 Magistrate: High Court: EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, GRAHAMSTOWN
More informationBUFFALO CITY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
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 informationIBHUBHEZI POWERLINES CC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: 5011/2015 283/2016 Date heard: 02 June 2016 Date delivered: 08 September 2016 In the matter between: IBHUBHEZI POWERLINES CC
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C OF A (CIV) NO.18/2016 LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C OF A (CIV) NO.18/2016 In the matter between:- LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED APPELLANT and TSEKISO POULO RESPONDENT CORAM: FARLAM,
More informationCriminal Procedure Act 51 of Civil procedure Absolution from the instance Test Unlawful arrest and detention Claim for damages Notion of arrest
Gali obo Gali & another v Kok & another [2009] JOL 24232 (E) Key Words Reported in: Judgments Online, a LexisNexis Electronic Law Report Series Case No: CA 115 / 06 Judgment Date(s): 27/ 08 /2009 Hearing
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) LTD t/a AVIS RENT A CAR NDWAMATO PHINIAS LAVHENGWA 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 (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL
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 informationTHE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 1225/12 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 1225/12 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: SASOL POLYMERS, a division of SASOL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Applicant and SOUTHERN AMBITION
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA DR ELIZABETH JOHANNA DE NECKER MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FREE STATE PROVINCE
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- Case No. : 2399/2012 DR ELIZABETH JOHANNA DE NECKER Plaintiff and MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FREE STATE PROVINCE
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 informationPANDURANGA SIVALINGA DASS NO First Plaintiff. ASOKAN POOGESEN NAIDU NO Second Plaintiff. SANDAKRISARAN NAIDU NO Third Plaintiff
REPORTABLE IN THE KWAZULU NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: 12161/2008 In the matter between PANDURANGA SIVALINGA DASS NO First Plaintiff ASOKAN POOGESEN NAIDU NO Second Plaintiff
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY Case No: 580/11 Date of Hearing: 27.05.2011 Date Delivered: 17.06.2011 In the matter between: BABEREKI CONSULTING ENGINEERS (PTY) LIMITED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: Case Number: 1865/2005 CHRISTOPHER MGATYELLWA PATRICK NDYEBO NCGUNGCA CHRISTOPHER MZWABANTU JONAS 1 st Plaintiff
More informationNICK S FISHMONGER HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD ALMON MANUEL ALVES DE SOUSA DEFENDANT CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM IN CONTRACT CONTRACT PROVIDING
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOUTH EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 1606/01 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: NICK S FISHMONGER HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD PLAINTIFF AND ALMON MANUEL ALVES DE SOUSA DEFENDANT CLAIM
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. L C FOURIE t/a LC FOURIE BOERDERY
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case No. : 174/2011 L C FOURIE t/a LC FOURIE BOERDERY Plaintiff and JOHANNES CHRISTIAAN KOTZé N.O. GRAHAM CHRISTIAAN
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Reportable Case No: 1036/2016 ROAD ACCIDENT FUND APPELLANT and KHOMOTSO POLLY MPHIRIME RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Road Accident
More information[1] The plaintiff instituted action against the defendant for damages to the
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 KWAZULU-NATAL
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA M AND K ACCOUNTING AND TAX CONSULTANTS
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number: 2197/2011 In the matter between:- M AND K ACCOUNTING AND TAX CONSULTANTS Applicant and CENTLEC (PTY) LTD Respondent CORAM: SNELLENBURG,
More informationREPORTABLE Case No AR 258/2009
REPORTABLE Case No AR 258/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KWAZULU-NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between : JNC HELICOPTERS CC Appellant (Plaintiff in the Court a quo) and CIVAIR
More informationIN 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 informationSOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case no: J 420/08 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL Applicant WORKERS UNION And NORTH WEST HOUSING CORPORATION 1 st Respondent MEC
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE ) n i c r yyv i 0 (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) ;2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YBS/NO. (3) REVISED. / /l \ CASE No. 60892/2011
More informationIn the matter between:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION DATE: 7/4/2006 NOT REPORTABLE CASE NO: 32486/2005 In the matter between: KAP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED APPLICANT AND THE LAND BANK RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1548/07. In the matter between: and
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1548/07 In the matter between: NTOMBENKOSI HLOMZA Plaintiff and THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY THE STATION COMMISSIONER,
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationPOTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case No: 11711/2014 POTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff And NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE Defendant
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 informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2014/24817 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 13 May 2016.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter
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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CRONIMET CHROME PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 851/12 Not reportable In the matter between: CRONIMET CHROME MINING SA (PTY) LTD FIRST APPELLANT CRONIMET CHROME SA (PTY) LTD SECOND APPELLANT
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 information[1] This is an appeal, brought with leave granted by the court a quo
Republic of South Africa In the High Court of South Africa Western Cape High Court, Cape Town CASE NO: A228/2009 MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY SUPERINTENDENT NOEL GRAHAM ZEEMAN PAUL CHRISTIAAN LOUW N.O.
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 informationGUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4490/2015 DATE HEARD: 02/03/2017 DATE DELIVERED: 30/03/2017 In the matter between GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL DIVISION, MAHIKENG SHAKE MULTI-SAVE SUPERMARKET CC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL DIVISION, MAHIKENG In the matter between: CASE NO: 413/12 SHAKE S MULTI-SAVE SUPERMARKET CC APPLICANT and HAFFEJEE, AHMED ABDUL HAY A I HAMPERS 1
More informationTHE JOHANNESBURG COUNTRY CLUB. Coram: HARMS, MARAIS AND CAMERON JJA Heard: 20 FEBRUARY 2004 Delivered: 18 MARCH 2004 Exemption clause interpretation
Reportable Case No 152/2003 In the matter between: THE JOHANNESBURG COUNTRY CLUB Appellant and ELEANOR EDITH STOTT PETER DENNIS MAY NO Respondent Third Party a quo Coram: HARMS, MARAIS AND CAMERON JJA
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN 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 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) (1) REPORTABLE: YSS / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDC -ES:?SS/NO (3) REVISED. \] GNATURE Da t e: Case Number: 31805/08 In the matter
More informationCHRISTIAN SIKHOLELO TYATYA THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 1850/2010 In the matter between: CHRISTIAN SIKHOLELO TYATYA Plaintiff And THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Defendant JUDGMENT
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 12/23280 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED...... SIGNATURE DATE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND (HELD AT MBABANE) QINISO GULE. Plaintiff. And. THULANE MNDZEBELE Defendant. Civil Case No. 1316/2004 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND (HELD AT MBABANE) QINISO GULE Plaintiff And THULANE MNDZEBELE Defendant Civil Case No. 1316/2004 Coram For the Plaintiff For the Defendant S.B.MAPHALALA - J MR. M. SIMELANE
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 HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN SOLAR MOUNTING SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case No.: 3717/2014 SOLAR MOUNTING SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD Applicant and ENGALA AFRICA (PTY) LTD SCHLETTER SOUTH AFRICA
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable In the matter between: Case no: 288/2017 OCEAN ECHO PROPERTIES 327 CC FIRST APPELLANT ANGELO GIANNAROS SECOND APPELLANT and OLD MUTUAL LIFE
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) CASH CRUSADERS FRANCHISING (PTY) LTD
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 1052/2013 2970/2013 CASH CRUSADERS FRANCHISING (PTY) LTD Applicant v LUVHOMBA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) CASE NO: 89232/2015 ( 1) REPORT ABLE: no (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: no (3) REVISED 19MAY2017 GB ROME AJ In
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) GARDEN CITIES (INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN)
REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Before the Hon Mr Justice NJ Yekiso In the matter between: GARDEN CITIES (INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN) Case
More informationJUDGMENT. [2] On 11 August 2005, a rule nisi was granted in the following terms on an unopposed basis:
00IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: J 1507/05 In the matter between: MAKHADO MUNICIPALITY Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION (SAMWU) AS RABAKALI and 669
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 466/07 In the matter between MUTUAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (TVL) (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and KOMATI DAM JOINT VENTURE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Mutual
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: MTHATHA CASE NO: 2248/12. Heard on: 02/09/13. Delivered on: 26/09/13 REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: MTHATHA CASE NO: 2248/12 Heard on: 02/09/13 Delivered on: 26/09/13 REPORTABLE In the matter between: SIWAPHIWE MAGWENTSHU Plaintiff and MINISTER
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD
1 FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ECJ NO: 021/2005 TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and FRAMESBY HIGH SCHOOL THE MEMBER FOR THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION, EASTERN CAPE
More information7 01 THE WORKFORCE GROUP (PTY) (LTD) A...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA Case number 57110/2011 In the matter of THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR THE COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER First Applicant
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT PRIMAT CONSTRUCTION CC
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 1075/2016 In the matter between: PRIMAT CONSTRUCTION CC APPELLANT and NELSON MANDELA BAY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY RESPONDENT Neutral
More informationCASE NO. 495/96. In the matter between AND SMALBERGER, NIENABER, SCHUTZ, SCOTT. and ZULMAN JJA HEARD: 16 SEPTEMBER 1997 DELIVERED: 26 SEPTEMBER 1997
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. 495/96 In the matter between EDUARDO FERNANDES BRAZ APPELLANT AND REFINO DA SILVA AFONSO FIRST RESPONDENT AND MANUEL JOSE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) Case No.: 1661/2012 Date heard: 15 November 2012 Date delivered: 15 January 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) Case No.: 1661/2012 Date heard: 15 November 2012 Date delivered: 15 January 2013 In the matter between: NELSON MANDELA BAY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
More informationTHE MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPEAL JUDGMENT
NOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: CA 107/2016 Date Heard: 10 March 2017 Date Delivered: 16 March 2017 In the matter between: THE MINISTER OF SAFETY
More informationMETROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: 611/2017 Date heard: 02 November 2017 Date delivered: 05 December 2017 In the matter between: NEO MOERANE First Applicant VUYANI
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN R P JANSEN VAN VUUREN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- R P JANSEN VAN VUUREN Case No: 703/2012 Plaintiff and H C REINECKE Defendant JUDGMENT BY: VAN DER MERWE, J HEARD
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
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 WEST DIVISION,
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. Lampac CC t/a Packaging World. John Henry Hawkey N.O.
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 17047/2009 In the matter between Lampac CC t/a Packaging World Applicant and John Henry Hawkey N.O. First Respondent John Dua Attorneys
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND KHANYISILE JUDITH DLAMINI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND In the matter between: JUDGMENT Civil Case 1876/2010 KHANYISILE JUDITH DLAMINI Plaintiff And WEBSTER LUKHELE Defendant Neutral citation: Khanyisile Judith Dlamini vs Webster
More informationJUDGMENT. Belet Industries CC t/a Belet Cellular. MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 936/2013 Not Reportable In the matter between: Belet Industries CC t/a Belet Cellular Appellant and MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley)
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Regional Magistrates Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley)
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2009
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) CASE No: A 178/09 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER JAMES BLAIR HUBBARD and GERT MOSTERT Appellant/Defendant
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 1A Article 8 1
Article 8. Miscellaneous. Rule 64. Seizure of person or property. At the commencement of and during the course of an action, all remedies providing for seizure of person or property for the purpose of
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J1982/2013 In the matter between: NUMSA obo MEMBERS Applicant And MURRAY AND ROBERTS PROJECTS First
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT REPORTABLE Case No: 244/13 In the matter between: GRANCY PROPERTY LIMITED AND ANOTHER Appellants and SEENA MARENA INVESTMENT (PTY) LTD AND OTHERS Respondents
More informationCAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Vivier Adcj, Howie JA and Brand AJA
CAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Citation Case No 495/99 Court Judge 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Supreme Court of Appeal Heard August 28, 2001 Vivier
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 informationREVIEW JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 1 NOVEMBER 2002
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) HIGH COURT REF No : 1907/2002 CASE No : D 122/2002 Magistrate s Series No : 171/2002 In the
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CASE NUMBER: 4/95 ENSIGN-BICKFORD (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LIMITED BULK MINING EXPLOSIVES (PTY) LIMITED DANTEX EXPLOSIVES (PTY) LIMITED 1st
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Appeal No.: A125/2013 In the matter between: SILAS NTULINI Applicant and THE REGIONAL COURT MAGISTRATE, First Respondent BLOEMFONTEIN
More informationTHANDEKILE NELSON SABISA LAWRENCE NZIMENI MAMBILA RULING IN TERMS OF RULE 39 (11)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA Case no. 2889/2016 Date heard: 13/06/18 Date delivered: 31/07/18 Reportable In the matter between: THANDEKILE NELSON SABISA LAWRENCE
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN ENSEMBLE TRADING 535 (PTY) LTD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case No.: 4875/2014 ENSEMBLE TRADING 535 (PTY) LTD Applicant and MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY SIBONGILE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA 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 (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG) Case number: JR2343/05 In the matter between: SEEFF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES Applicant And COMMISSIONER N. MBHELE N.O First Respondent COMMISSION
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 172/16 SOUTH AFRICAN RIDING FOR THE DISABLED ASSOCIATION Applicant and REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER SEDICK SADIEN EBRAHIM SADIEN
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] On Thursday 28 March 2002 at approximately 14h00, the appellant s
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION REPORTABLE CASE NO: AR 47/2008 In the matter between: A CHETTY APPELLANT and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT GORVEN J [1] On Thursday
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2015/5890 (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED.... 23 May 2016 SIGNATURE In the matter
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationas amended by Apportionment of Damages Amendment Act 58 of 1971 (RSA) (RSA GG 3150) came into force on date of publication: 16 June 1971 ACT
(SA GG 5689) came into force in South Africa and South West Africa on date of publication: 1 June 1956 (see section 6 of Act) APPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA: Section 6 originally stated This Act shall
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.: /2009 In the matter between:
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.: 11274 /2009 In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED trading as WESBANK PLAINTIFF and ARI CARRIERS CC FIRST DEFENDANT MR
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 informationGAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) JUDGMENT. [1] On 13 April 2006 the Director-General of Public Works' (or his delegate) entered
IN THE In the matter between GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Case No: 3823/09 ti JSJzoto THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Excipient and KOVAC INVESTMENTS 289 (PTY)
More informationCase No.: 2708/2014 Date heard: 09 October 2014 Date delivered: 10 October In the matter between: Second Applicant. and.
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 informationMINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES JUDGMENT. [1] In accordance to an agreement which was reached between the
Not Reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION PORT ELIZABETH In the matter between: Case No: 3509/2012 Date Heard: 15/08/2016 Date Delivered: 1/09/2016 ANDILE SILATHA Plaintiff
More informationJUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL. [1] In the trial which lasted for two (2) days, applicant (plaintiff a quo) sued
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH Case no: 2656/2009 Date heard: 24.07.2012 Date delivered: 07.08.2012 In the matter between: ADUM TREVOR PLUMRIDGE Applicant / Plaintiff
More informationINTHE FREE STATE HIGH COURT BLOEMFONTEIN Not reportable
INTHE FREE STATE HIGH COURT BLOEMFONTEIN Not reportable Case No. : 1272/2015 In the matter between:- M BUYS Applicant and DR PA MINNAAR & ASSOCIATE 99 ING 1 st Respondent LEON VAN ASWEGEN 2 nd Respondent
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] This is an application, brought as one of urgency, to set aside the order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 3092/2015 DATE HEARD: 01/09/2015 DATE DELIVERED: 10/09/2015 In the matter between SYNTEC GLOBAL INCORPORATED LIVE
More information