HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
|
|
- Beverly Stewart
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) In the matter between: CASE NO: 38645/2015 Not reportable Not of interest to other Judges CRIMSON KING PROPERTIES 21 (PTY) LTD Applicant and JOHN PETER WRIGHT SHERIFF THABAZIMBI First Respondent Second Respondent Heard: Order: Reasons: 19 June August August 2017 Summary: Rescission of an order - Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Courtwhat constitutes 'erroneously' sought and granted order - if no irregularity in the granting of the order, Rule 42 not applicable. Rescission of the order under common law - good cause - entails two elements of reasonable explanation for the delay and bona fide defence - applicants' defence based on single-judge judgments doubting the correctness of the judgment of the Full Court - that defence having no prospect of success at trial - application dismissed.
2 2 JUDGMENT MAKGOKA,J Introduction [I] This is an application for rescission of an order granted by this court on 13 July 2015 (the impugned order). The application is linked to the one under case 48306/2011, between Hendrick Naude and another v John Peter Wright. The two cases are determined on the same reasoning. Therefore, the reader's attention is drawn to the judgment in that case, which is delivered evenly with this one. [2] The applicant, Crimson King Properties (Pty) Ltd (Crimson) is a company with limited liability, whose sole director is Mr Jacobus Stephanus Naude (Naude Jnr). His parents, Mr Hendrick Diederick Naude (the principal debtor) and Mrs Johanna Frederika Naude, are the applicants under case number 48306/2011, in which they seek the rescission of an order granted on 13 December 2013 against the principal debtor (Naude Jnr's father) pursuant to a loan agreement concluded by the principal debtor and the first respondent, Mr John Peter Wright, a businessman.
3 3 [3] In terms of the impugned order, Crimson is to pay the respondent a sum of R , interest and costs. Its property was declared specially executable. Crimson now seeks to rescind that order and to stay the sale in execution of its property. The basis of Crimson's case is that the order was erroneously sought and erroneously granted. The application is opposed by the first respondent. The second respondent, the sheriff, does not take any part in the proceedings. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the first respondent simply as 'the respondent'. Background facts [ 4] The brief factual background is this. During December 2008 the respondent concluded an oral agreement with the principal debtor in terms of which the respondent loaned the principal debtor a sum of Rl , with interest to be charged at 10% per annum. The loan was to be repaid by no later than 11 December On 17 March 2009 the oral agreement was reduced to writing by the parties in the form of an acknowledgment of debt signed by the principal debtor. [5] The principal debtor failed to honour the terms of the agreement by not repaying the loan on 11 December On 23 August 2011 the respondent instituted action in this court under case number 48306/2011 against the principal debtor for payment of the monies lent and advanced. The return of
4 4 service reflects that the summons was served on the principal debtor's domicilium address in terms of the agreement on 30 August 2011 by 'fixing to the principal door'. The principal debtor did not deliver a notice of intention to defend. [6] On 22 August 2013 the application for default judgment was served on the principal debtor in a similar manner stated in para 5 above. Without any response from the principal debtor, the respondent applied for, and was granted an order by default on 12 December 2013 in the terms reflected in para 3 above. On 24 November 2014 the sheriff, at the instance of the respondent, served a writ of execution on the principal debtor. Without any money or disposable property or assets to satisfy the warrant, the sheriff returned nulla bona. [7] Meanwhile, on 23 April 2012 Crimson had bound itself as surety and coprincipal debtor by way of surety bond for the due and proper payment of the amount of Rl and a further additional amount of R , as security for the contingent payment by the principal debtor. On 27 May 2015 the respondent issued an application out of this court in which he sought from Crimson, payment of a sum of R , pursuant to the surety bond registered in its favour, referred to above. The application was served on 3 June 2017 at Crimson's registered address. It was received by the principal debtor. Without any notice of intention to oppose, on 13 July 2015 the respondent
5 5 obtained a default order against Crimson. Subsequently, the respondent caused to be issued a warrant of sale in execution of Crimson's property, a farm in Limpopo. It was served on Crimson on 20 April That, briefly, concludes the background facts. Order erroneously sought or granted? [8] I shall first consider whether the impugned order can be rescinded in terms of rule 42 of the uniform rules, on which Crimson expressly relies. Rule 42(1)(a) provides that the court may rescind or vary an order or judgment erroneously sought or erroneously granted in the absence of any party affected thereby. [9] A peculiar feature of the application is that Crimson does not directly attack the order granted against it on 13 July Instead, it seeks to impugn the order granted against the principal debtor under case number 48306/2011. It relies on the same basis as the principal debtor does there. [10] According to Crimson, the default judgment against the principal debtor was erroneously sought and erroneously granted. Essentially, it is argued that the particulars of claim against the principal debtor do not disclose a cause of action because the agreement between the respondent and the principal debtor is subject to the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (the NCA), and the respondent
6 6 was enjoined to allege in his particulars of claim that he is a registered credit provider. Absent that allegation, Crimson contends, the particulars of claim did not disclose a cause of action. In this regard, Crimson rely on s 40(1) of the NCA in terms of which a person is required to register as a credit provider if the principal debt owed under all outstanding credit agreements, other than incidental credit agreements, exceed R500 OOO. As a result, so was the argument, the agreement must be declared null and void in terms of s 89(5) of the NCA, and consequently the surety, as an accessory obligation, is null and void, its validity depending on the existence of a valid principal obligation. [ 11] The law as to whether a judgment has been erroneously sought or erroneously granted within the meaning of rule 42 is well-settled. It is articulated by the Supreme Court of Appeal in two judgments: Colyn v Tiger Food Industries Ltd t/a Meadow Feed Mills (Cape) 2003 (6) 1 (SCA) and Lodhi 2 Properties Investments CC & another v Bondev Developments (Pty) Ltd 2007 (6) SA 87 (SCA). In Lodhi, the following was stated: '(25) However, a judgment to which a party is procedurally entitled cannot be considered to have been granted erroneously by reason of facts of which the Judge who granted the judgment as he was entitled to do, was unaware... This court (in Colyn) held that no procedural irregularity or mistake in respect of the issue of the order has been committed and that it was not possible to conclude that the order had erroneously been sought or had erroneously been granted by the Judge who granted the order.
7 7 '[27] A court which grants judgment by default... does not grant the judgment on the basis that the defendant does not have a defence: it grants judgment on the basis that the defendant has been notified of the plaintiff's claim as required by the rules, that the defendant, not having given notice of intention to defend, is not defending the matter and that the plaintiff is in terms of the rules entitled to the order sought. The existence or non-existence of a defence on the merits is an irrelevant consideration and, if subsequently disclosed, cannot transform a validly obtained judgment into an erroneous judgment.' See also Harms, Civil Procedure, para B42.3. [12) The above observations are apt to the present case, and demonstrate that there is no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of Crimson. The judge who granted the impugned order on 13 July 2013 (Rabie J) would have considered the cause of action against Crimson in the founding affidavit on behalf of the respondent. It was pursuant to a surety bond, in terms of which Crimson had bound itself as surety and co-principal debtor. The judge would have been satisfied that that the necessary allegations had been made; the bond of surety had been attached to the founding affidavit; that Crimson had been served on 3 June 2013; and that Crimson was in default. The learned judge would not have concerned himself with the summons under a different case number (which was not before him, in any event) as to whether the particulars of claim under case number 48306/2011 disclosed a cause of action. But, even if the judge had been placed in possession of the file under that case number, he would have accepted that another judge had granted judgment by default there.
8 8 [13] If Crimson's argument is taken to its logical conclusion, the judge should have ignored that default judgment against the principal debtor under case number 48306/2011 because, on Crimson's argument, it was wrongly granted for the reasons it now advances. Of course this is untenable for manifold and obvious reasons. What is more, as at the date the default order was granted against the principal debtor, there was direct authority for it by a Full Court of this Division. See Friend v Sendai 2015 (1) SA 395 (GP), which was delivered on 3 August 2012 in which the same argument advanced on behalf of Crimson was rejected by the Full Court. As a result, the judge who considered the application for default judgment against the principal debtor on 12 December 2013, was bound by Friend, and would not have regarded the lack of allegation of registration as a credit provider, to have the effect that the particulars of claim did not disclose a cause of action. [14] In all considerations, the respondent was procedurally entitled to the order by default under the circumstances outlined above. There is no room, by any stretch of imagination, for any argument that the order against Crimson was erroneously sought or granted. In the result I conclude it was not.
9 9 The common law [15] I tum now to consider whether, at common law, there is 'good cause' to rescind the impugned order (De Wet v Western Bank Ltd 1979 (2) SA 1031 (A) and Colyn Tiger Foods). In addition, the application must be made within a reasonable time (Genticuro AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd 1972 (1) SA 589 (A); First National Bank of SA Ltd v Van Rensburg NO & Others 1994 (1) SA 677 (T) at 681H). As to what constitutes 'good cause' Smalberger J explained in HDS Construction (Pty) Ltdv Wait 1979 (2) SA 298 (E) at 300 infine-301b: 'When dealing with words such as "good cause" and "sufficient cause" in other Rules and enactments the Appellate Division has refrained from attempting an exhaustive definition of their meaning in order not to abridge or fetter in any way the wide discretion implied by these words (Cairns' Executors v Gaarn 1912 AD 181 at 186; Silber v Ozen Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd 1954 (2) SA 345 (A) at 352-3). The Court's discretion must be exercised after a proper consideration of all the relevant circumstances.' (16] The jurisdictional requirement of 'good cause' entails two essential elements. First, a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the default, and second, a demonstration of a bona fide defence. In Chetty v Law Society, Transvaal 1985 (2) SA 756 (A) at 765 B-C, the following was stated: '[T]t is clear that in principle and in the long standing practice of our courts, two essential elements of "sufficient cause" for rescission of a judgment by default are: (i) that the party seeking relief must present a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his default; and
10 10 (ii) that on the merits such a party has a bona tide defence which prima facie carries some prospect of success.' Reasonable and acceptable explanation fo r the defa ult l 17] As stated earlier, the impugned order against Crimson was granted after the application by the respondent was served on it on 3 June According to the return of service, the application was served personally on the principal debtor, who, as explained earlier, is the father of Naude Jnr, the sole director of Crimson. Naude Jnr deposed the founding affidavit on behalf Crimson. He does not proffer any explanation at all, why Crimson did not oppose the application. In his answering affidavit, the respondent pertinently, and in very explicit terms, challenged Crimson on this, and indicated that he would seek the dismissal of the application on this lack of explanation for the default. One would have expected Naude Jnr to meet the challenge. He did not. Instead, very deftly, he side-stepped the issue. [ 18] Although he prefaces his replying affidavit with a statement that he would deal with the answering affidavit seriatim, he does not. He further states that he would deal only with those allegations that warrant a specific reply' from him. The challenge by the respondent regarding lack of explanation for the default is contained in paragraphs 3-6 of his answering affidavit. Glaringly, the replying affidavit does deal with those paragraphs at all.
11 11 f 19] Naude Jnr only deals with the subsequent paragraphs (paragraphs 7 onwards), totally ignoring the pertinent issue of delay in paragraphs 3-6 as stated above. It is difficult, in the context of a rescission application, to conceive paragraphs that warrant a specific reply than those contained in paragraph 3-6 of the respondent's answering affidavit. The ineluctable conclusion for Crimson's silence on this aspect is that it does not have any reasonable and acceptable explanation for its default. Del ay s [20] Closely connected to the above, is Crimson' delay in bringing this application, and how it conducted the litigation. As stated earlier, the respondent's application was served on Crimson on 3 June 2015, according to the sheriff's return of service. Crimson only issued this application on 24 May 2016, almost a year later. There is no explanation for this inordinate delay. [21] According to the founding affidavit on its behalf, Crimson became aware of the judgement against it on 20 April Obviously this cannot be correct, in the light of what is stated above. But, even on this version, there is a delay of over a month, for which there is no explanation. Furthennore, Crimson's conduct in conducting the litigation reveals unexplained delays. For example, the respondent's answering affidavit was served on Crimson's attorneys on 30 June In tenns of rule 6(5)(e) of the unifonn rules, Crimson's replying
12 12 aflidavit was due on 14 July 2016 (10 court days after the answering affidavit was served). It was only served on 19 August over a month later. Again, there is no explanation for the delay. [22] After having served its replying affidavit late, Crimson failed to file its brief heads of argument in terms of the Practice Manual of this Division, with the result that the matter could not be enrolled for hearing. It felj to the respondent to file heads of argument on 19 October 2016, and the registrar allocated the date of hearing for 19 June On 17 December 2016, the respondent served the notice of set-down for the week commencing 19 June Crimson only filed its heads of argument 31 May 2017, just over two weeks before the date of hearing. Again, there is no explanation for all these delays and inaction on the part of Crimson. (23] The cumulative effect of the conduct of Crimson detailed in the preceding paragraphs is that Crimson fails to get out of the proverbial starting block in its obligation to give a reasonable and acceptable explanation for its default. It also fails to explain the undue and inordinate delay in bringing this application. Furthermore, there are unexplained delays in conducting the litigation. Such conduct casts doubt upon Crimson's bona fides. It also borders on the abuse of the process of this court, which cannot be countenanced. Crimson should be non-suited on these considerations alone.
13 13 Bona fide defence f24] I am aware of the authorities to the effect that where an applicant has provided a poor explanation for its default, a good defence may compensate for such poor explanation. See Carolus v Saambou Bank Ltd; Smith v Saambou Bank Ltd 2002 (6) SA 346 (SE) at 249B-C and Creative Car Sound v Automobile Radio Dealers Association 1989 (Pty) Ltd 2007 (4) SA 546 (D) at 555 C-D. See also Melane v Sanlam Insurance Co Ltd 1962 (4) SA 531 (AD) 532 C-F. [25] In my view, these authorities do not avail Crimson. They are meant for applicants whose explanation is deemed 'poor' or 'weak' or 'insufficient', and not for applicants like Crimson, who offer no explanation at all. But, in any event. I have already demonstrated that the argument advanced by Crimson on the merits has no prospect of success at all, based on the judgment of the Full Court in Friend, as fully explained earlier. There is no bona fide defence at all. The application falls to fail. The general principle with regard to costs should apply. Costs follow the result. f26] For all these reasons, I made an order referred to in para 1 above, which, for the sake of completeness, I repeat below: 1. In the result the application is dismissed with costs.
14 Judge of the High Court 14
15 15 APPEARANCES: For Crimsons: JG Van der Westhuizen Instructed by: Van Graan & Van Der Wateren, Johannesburg For Respondent: J Moorcroft Instructed by: Biccari Bollo & Mariano Inc., Pretoria
IN 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 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 COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA BOLLORE AFRICA LOGISTICS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD BOLLORE TRADING AND INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CASE NO: CT004AUG2017 BOLLORE AFRICA LOGISTICS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Applicant (Registration Number: 2012/013416/07) and
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO 19783/2008 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 5 March 2010..... SIGNATURE In the matter between PAM GOLDING PROPERTIES
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 informationNUSUN DEVELOPMENT (PTY) LTD First Respondent HSU-LIEH HO: Manager-Nusun Second Respondent
VRYSTAAT HOË HOF, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIEK VAN SUID AFRIKA Case Number: 4882/2011 In the matter between:- BOGATSU DAVID RAMOLIBE First Applicant MARIA RAMOLIBE Second Applicant and NUSUN DEVELOPMENT (PTY)
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 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 HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COtlRT, CAPfe'TOWN)
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COtlRT, CAPfe'TOWN) Case No: 2377/2011 In the matter between: Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Binns-Ward. RECRUITMENT WORLDWIDE
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 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA WHITELEYS CONSTRUCTION
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- Case No. : 2924/09 WHITELEYS CONSTRUCTION Plaintiff and CARLOS NUNES CC Defendant HEARD ON: 3 DECEMBER 2009 JUDGMENT
More informationIt?.. 't?.!~e/7. \0 \ ':;) \ d-0,1 2ND DEFENDANT 3RD DEFENDANT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE N0.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE 1. REPORTABLE: YES/ NO 2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO \0 \ ':;) \ d-0,1 3. ~EVSED It?.. 't?.!~e/7
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
\ ' REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 66156/12 Not reportable Not of interest to other judges In the matter between: SILVERSTONE, COLIN WAINE
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NUMBER: 30726/2009 DATE: 26 SEPTEMBER 2014 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES In the matter between:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case No.: 3048/2015 STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Plaintiff And JOROY 0004 CC t/a UBUNTU PROCUREM 1 st
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION) FIRSTRAND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION) Case No: 17622/2008 In the matter between FIRSTRAND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Applicant And PETER JAQUE WAGNER N.O. PETER JAQUE WAGNER First Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG. Ruijter Stevens Properties (Pty) Ltd ORDER JUDGMENT
REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG In the matter between: CASE NO: AR352/14 Hugh William Mathie Appellant And Ruijter Stevens Properties (Pty) Ltd Respondent
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 informationGUMA AND THREE OTHERS JUDGEMENT. [1] This is an application for rescission of a judgement given by. August In terms of the judgement the
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. J1281/98 In the matter between: SIZABANTU ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION APPLICANT and GUMA AND THREE OTHERS RESPONDENTS JUDGEMENT SEADY A J [1]
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Binns-Ward Hearing: 9 February 2017 Judgment: 15 February 2017 Case No. 162/2016
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT STAMFORD SALES & DISTRIBUTION (PTY) LIMITED METRACLARK (PTY) LIMITED
In the matter between: THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT REPORTABLE Case No: 676/2013 STAMFORD SALES & DISTRIBUTION (PTY) LIMITED APPELLANT and METRACLARK (PTY) LIMITED RESPONDENT Neutral
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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL DIVISION, DURBAN AND STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED 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 KWAZULU NATAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
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 FREE STATE DIVISION,
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL 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 informationl.~t.q~..:~. DATE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NUMBER: 82666/2017 In the matter between:
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NUMBER: 82666/2017 (1) REPORTABLE: YES/ N (2) OF INTEREST TOO R JU (3) REVISED. l.~t.q~..:~. DATE In the matter
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA) In the matter between: Case No: 55443/10 FIRST RAND BANK LIMITED t/a APPLICANT FNB HOME LOANS And DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
More information[1] This is an urgent application for an interdict restraining the first, second
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 9940/06 In the matter between: JONAS DANIEL CHARLES DE BRUYN First Applicant MARGARET MARIA DE BRUYN Second Applicant
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 informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Heard at CAROLINA on 4 March 2002 CASE NUMBER: LCC 115/99 Before: Gildenhuys AJ Decided on: 15 March 2002 In the case between: COMBRINCK, H J Plaintiff and NHLAPO,
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Date: 2011-09-14 In the matter between: Case Number: 55727/2010 REPORTABLE URBAIN DJAH ZADI JEANNE PASCALE ZADI First Applicant Second
More informationEXCLUSIVE ACCESS TRADING 73 (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT GRAHAMSTOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO: 3829/2009 DATE HEARD: 28/02/2011 DATE DELIVERED: 01/03/2011 EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TRADING 73 (PTY) LTD
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG HIGH COURT (LOCAL DIVISION JOHANNESBURG)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG HIGH COURT (LOCAL DIVISION JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO:30023/2013 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED 29 OCTOBER 2014 Signature: T MOSIKATSANA
More information(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: ES/ NO [lf};jj_ JUDGMENT. 1 SSG Security Solutions (Pty) Limited (SSG) and the second
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 67027/17 In the matter between: SSG SECURITY SOLUTIONS (PTY) LIMITED Applicant (1) REPORTABLE: ES/ NO and (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
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 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 informationABSA BANK LIMITED Plaintiff AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No.: 8850/2011 In the matter between: ABSA BANK LIMITED Plaintiff and ROBERT DOUGLAS MARSHALL GAVIN JOHN WHITEFORD N.O. GLORIA
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
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG HIGH COURT (LOCAL DIVISION JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: 27612/2010 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED Date:..2014 In the matter between
More informationBANDILE KASHE, in his capacity as the Executor for the Estate Late W.M. M., Reference No: 2114/2007 JUDGMENT
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 EAST LONDON
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG ANDREW LESIBA SHABALALA
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between Case No: 10619/15. And in the matter between Case No: 10618/15
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between Case No: 10619/15 THE BODY CORPORATE OF HARBOUR VIEW SECTIONAL TITLE SCHEME APPLICANT and PEDRO WEBB RESPONDENT And
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 33118/2010. In the matter between:
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 SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NUMBER: 20138/2011 In the matter between MAGDELENA MARIA DE WET UITBLINK OPVOEDINGKUNDIGE DIENSTE CC t/a SKILLS SOLUTIONS SA
More informationBuffalo City Metropolitan Municipality JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION Case nos: EL270/17; ECD970/17 Date heard: 22/6/17 Date delivered: 28/6/17 Not reportable In the matter between: David Barker Applicant
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 1316/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 1316/13 In the matter between: BAYVIEW CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LIMITED Plaintiff/Applicant And ELDORADO TRADING CC JOHN PULLEN First
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 12/07 [2007] ZACC 24 M M VAN WYK Applicant versus UNITAS HOSPITAL DR G E NAUDÉ First Respondent Second Respondent and OPEN DEMOCRATIC ADVICE CENTRE Amicus
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO: 70623/11 [1) REPORTABLE: [2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: t^no) it [3) REVISED. DATE In the matter between: CENTWISE 153 CC
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 (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: 4826/2014 FIRSTRAND FINANCE COMPANY Applicant and EMERALD VAN ZYL Respondent
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT MICHAEL MATHIESON LYALL JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable/Reportable Case No: JS171/14 In the matter between: CITY OF JOHANNESBURG Applicant and MICHAEL MATHIESON
More information4th RESPONDENT. Coram: IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION. Case number: NCT/79160/2017/165. In the matter between: ASSA BANK LIMITED
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION Case number: NCT/79160/2017/165 In the matter between: ASSA BANK LIMITED APPLICANT and BEN SAGER (NCRDC: 2484) NONHLANHLA CORAH NXELE SIFISO LUCKY MTHETHWA
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD AT CENTURION Case number: (1) In the matter between: NOZIPHO ANGEL LANGA APPLICANT and LORENCO LEWIS 1 ST RESPONDENT AFRICAN BANK LIMITED FOSCHINI RETAIL GROUP (PTY)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL ROY FELIX. And. DAVID BROOKS Also called MAVADO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CA No. S 256/2017 Between ROY FELIX And DAVID BROOKS Also called MAVADO Claimant Defendant PANEL: BEREAUX J.A. NARINE J.A. RAJKUMAR J.A. APPEARANCES:
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 41288/2014 DATE OF HEARING: 14 MAY 2015 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE... SIGNATURE
More informationJUDGMENT (For delivery)
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 28/13 [2013] ZACC 20 In the matter between: HUGH GLENISTER Applicant and PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MINISTER FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER
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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: JR1944/12 DAVID CHAUKE Applicant and SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL THE MINISTER OF POLICE COMMISSIONER F J
More informationNV PROPERTIES (PTY) LIMITED HRN QUANTITY SURVERYORS (PTY) LIMITED JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: 2123/2012 DATE HEARD: 26/04/2012 DATE DELIVERED: 16/05/2012 In the matter between NV PROPERTIES (PTY) LIMITED APPLICANT and
More informationREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT PDS HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR THE DISTRICT OF WINDHOEK
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT Case no: HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2017/00163 In the matter between: PDS HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD APPLICANT and MINISTER OF LAND REFORM DANIEL
More informationIN 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: 30037/2015 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) REPUBLIC 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION JOHANNESBURG) Case No: 30320/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION JOHANNESBURG) Case No: 30320/13 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 25 July 2014 EJ Francis In the matter between:
More informationCOMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case/File Number: CT012Jan2015 In the matter between: LEGAL EXPENSES INSURANCE SOUTHERN AFRICA LTD Applicant and WISE-UP TRADING AND PROJECTS CC (2011/067571/23) Respondent
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN] Coram: LE GRANGE, J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN] Coram: LE GRANGE, J In the matter between: CASE NO: 15967/07 - REPORTABLE- ABSA BANK LIMITED Plaintiff And NAFIESA MAGIET NO Defendant
More informationGAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 28070/2015 ( 1) REPORT ABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OT (3) REVISED. ~J.0.Jrq l?.. DATE SIGNATURE In the matter between: JILLIAN
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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J2110/2016 Case no: J2078/16 In the matter between STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA Applicant and NEHAWU obo NETSHIVUNGULULU AND
More informationJUDGMENT THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 30400/2015. In the matter between: And
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 30400/2015 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 26 May 2016.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN CONSTRUCTION AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION FIRST APPLICANT LOVELY MPHILA SECOND APPLICANT JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J347/97 In the matter between: CONSTRUCTION AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION FIRST APPLICANT LOVELY MPHILA SECOND APPLICANT and FEDERALE STENE
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JS 1505/16 In the matter between: MOQHAKA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant and FUSI JOHN MOTLOUNG SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT,
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: 353/2016 FACTAPROPS 1052 CC ISMAIL EBRAHIM DARSOT FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT and LAND AND AGRICULTURAL
More information/SG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
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 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) NOT REPORTABLE DATE: 7/10/2008 CASE NO.: 40408/08 In the matter between KIEPERSOL POULTRY FARM (PTY) LTD. Applicant and TOUCHSTONE CATTLE
More informationCOURTS OF LAW AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA COURTS OF LAW AMENDMENT BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 75); explanatory summary of Bill published in Government Gazette No. 39943 of 22 April 2016)
More informationJ U D G M E N T. [1] This is an application for rescission of a default judgment. respondent during October The debt relates to a loan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No.: 536/2010 Date heard: 20 May 2010 Date delivered: 25 May 2010 ANNA MAGDALENA STOW Applicant and FIRSTRAND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG CASE NO. 100/2014 In the matter between: SCHALK VISSER PLAINTIFF and PEWTER STAR INVESTMENTS CC 1 ST DEFENDANT SUSANNA MARGARETHA WEISS
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF
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 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN SIMCHA PROPERTIES 12 CC ZAGEY: STEPHAN SCHNEIDER: AUBREY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- NEDBANK LTD Case No: 341/2014 Plaintiff and SIMCHA PROPERTIES 12 CC 1 st Defendant ZAGEY: STEPHAN 2 nd Defendant
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 informationPFP' RT ir OF SOI ITH AFRICA
1 T N T H^ VHPTH r.aiiteng Hi^-» ronrt. PRETORIA PFP' RT ir OF SOI ITH AFRICA TTE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE REPORTABLE^S/NO. {j3WNO. (3) REVISED. S \ Case Number: 34068/2010
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 38/04 RADIO PRETORIA Applicant versus THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
More informationEASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION MTHATHA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION MTHATHA CASE NO 3642/2015 In the matter between: MINISTER OF POLICE, LIBODE STATION COMMISSIONER 1 st Applicant 2 nd Defendant And REFORMED
More informationChapter 4 Creditors Voluntary Winding Up Application of Chapter. MKD/096/AC#
[PART 11 WINDING UP Chapter 1 Preliminary and Interpretation 549. Interpretation (Part 11). 550. Restriction of this Part. 551. Modes of winding up - general statement as to position under Act. 552. Types
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY SA LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JR 438/11 In the matter between: ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY SA LTD Applicant and COMMISSIONER J S K NKOSI N.O. First Respondent COMMISSION
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. SATINSKY 128 (PTY) LTD t/a JUST GROUP AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR 1479 / 2012 In the matter between: SATINSKY 128 (PTY) LTD t/a JUST GROUP AFRICA Applicant and DISPUTE
More informationLETTITIA MOMAFAKU NDEMA
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION- EAST LONDON 18/05/2012 Case no: EL: 283/2010 ECD: 583/2010 Date Heard: 15/05/2012 Date Delivered: In the matter between: LETTITIA MOMAFAKU NDEMA
More informationLegal Business. Overview Of Court Procedure. Memoranda on legal and business issues and concerns for multiple industry and business communities
Memoranda on legal and business issues and concerns for multiple industry and business communities Overview Of Court Procedure 1 Rajah & Tann 4 Battery Road #26-01 Bank of China Building Singapore 049908
More informationSOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2008/41609 DATE:30/08/2010 In the matter between: GEODIS WILSON SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and ACA (PTY) LTD First Defendant
More informationCOURTS OF LAW AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA COURTS OF LAW AMENDMENT BILL (As amended by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services (National Assembly)) (The English text is the offıcial text of the Bill)
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
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 NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
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 informationHIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Not reportable Not of interest to other Judges CASE NO: 76306/2015 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES Applicant and SELLO JULIUS
More informationNot reportable Not of interest to other Judges. First Applicant. Second Applicant. and. First Respondent. Second Respondent.
,. HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Not reportable Not of interest to other Judges CASE NO: 61163/2017 THE SPAR GROUP LIMITED THE SP AR GUILD OF SOUTHERN AFRICA NPC First Applicant
More information