JUDGMENT. [1] On Thursday 28 March 2002 at approximately 14h00, the appellant s

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "JUDGMENT. [1] On Thursday 28 March 2002 at approximately 14h00, the appellant s"

Transcription

1 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 28 March 2002 at approximately 14h00, the appellant s attorney, Ms Ramnarain ( Ramnarain ) arrived at Durban Bay House having driven from Chatsworth. The regional office of the defendant was located on the19 th Floor. Her goal was to hand deliver the claim documents ( the claim ) of the plaintiff arising from a collision which had occurred on 30 March She was keenly aware that if it was not delivered by 29 March 2002, the plaintiff s right to claim compensation would become prescribed. This in terms of section 23 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 0f 1996 ( the Act ). [2] She was also keenly aware that she could not hand deliver the claim the following day which was Good Friday and thus a public holiday. She expected the defendant s regional office to be closed on public holidays. What she had not reckoned with was the custom, which had apparently developed in that office, to close the office at approximately noon on days before public holidays. There was therefore no-one at the defendant s office available and authorised to receive and receipt hand delivered claims.

2 2 [3] Ramnarain was met in the foyer by a security officer who refused her access beyond the security point. He told her that the office of the defendant was closed and that nobody was allowed beyond that point. When she pointed out her predicament, he suggested that she deposit the claim in a wooden box ( the box ) in the foyer which the defendant used to receive documents. She did so and left. [4] The defendant repudiated liability for the claim whereupon the plaintiff issued summons. In her particulars of claim she averred that she had complied with the provisions of the Act. This prompted the defendant to enter a special plea to the effect that the claim was only lodged on 4 April 2002 and, accordingly, the plaintiff s right to claim compensation had prescribed. The defendant pleaded over, denying, amongst other things, that the plaintiff had complied with the relevant provisions of the Act. Although the plaintiff raised an estoppel by way of a replication to the special plea, no evidence was led in support of the replication and Mr Pillay, who appeared for the plaintiff on appeal, disavowed any reliance on the replication. [5] The matter was heard in the Magistrate s Court for the district of Durban and, by agreement, only the special plea was dealt with as a separate and initial issue. No specific order was made and no discussion relating to the onus of proof took place. The plaintiff assumed the duty to begin. It is clear that, as part of the special plea, it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove that she had lodged the claim within the prescribed time limit. A court ordering

3 3 a separation of issues is required to define clearly and precisely the issues to be separated (Denel (Edms) Beperk v Vorster 2004 (4) SA 481 (SCA) 485). This was not done in the court a quo. In the event, the question of the onus of proof did not come into play in the light of the evidence led in this matter. I will deal below with the form the order should have taken in the circumstances. [6] The appeal turns on whether depositing the claim in the box in the foyer of Durban Bay House amounted to delivery of the claim to the defendant on the day on which it was deposited or not. No evidence was led by the defendant to gainsay that of Ramnarain as set out above. In fact, the defendant s evidence in the person of Ms Ramroop, a claims handler, assisted the plaintiff to an extent. Her evidence confirmed the practice of closing the office early on the day before public holidays and that this had happened on 28 March She also testified that claims deposited in the box in the foyer were treated as hand delivered claims by the defendant and were receipted at the end of each working day as having been received on that day. The receipting did not take place at the end of 28 March 2002 even though it was a working day because the offices had closed early. She could not give specific evidence as to how the plaintiff s claim was treated or explain how it happened that the receipt stamp on it bore the date 4 April [7] The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of section 24(1)(b) of the Act and that, accordingly, the claim was not delivered in time. Section 24(1)(b) reads as follows:

4 4 A claim for compensation and accompanying medical report under section 17(1) shall- (b) be sent by registered post or delivered by hand to the Fund at its principal, branch or regional office, or to the agent who in terms of section 8 must handle the claim, at the agent's registered office or local branch office, and the Fund or such agent shall at the time of delivery by hand acknowledge receipt thereof and the date of such receipt in writing. [8] I have not found any decided cases on section 24(1)(b) of the Act which relate to hand delivery. I have also not found any on the many precursors to that section. We were not referred to any in argument. I will deal below with a case which refers in an obiter dictum to such a precursor. [9] One such precursor was section 11bis of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 29 of 1942 ( section 11bis ) which read as follows: A claim for compensation under sec. 11 shall be set out on the form prescribed by regulation in such manner as may be so prescribed and shall, accompanied by such medical report or reports as may be so prescribed, be sent by registered post or delivered by hand to the registered company at its registered office or local branch office, and the registered company shall, in the case of delivery by hand, at the time of the delivery, acknowledge receipt thereof and of the date of such receipt in writing. [10] It can be seen that section 24(1)(b) of the Act is to all intents and purposes identical to this section. In the matter of Commercial Union Assurance Company of South Africa v Clarke 1972 (3) SA 508 (A) a claim form had been sent to the registered company by ordinary post. It was common cause that it was despatched by post on 22 February, that it was

5 5 received on 26 February and that summons was issued and served on 23 April. The issue was whether the period of 60 days required to elapse prior to service of the summons had elapsed. In seeking to dismiss the action as premature, the registered company argued that the 60 days should be counted from the date on which the claim letter was received, viz. 26 February. The court held that the word sent in section 11bis referred to the date on which the documents were despatched by post. As to the argument that the word sent should be construed to refer only to registered post, Holmes JA commented as follows at 517 B C: Similarly, in the present case I entertain no doubt but that the provision in sec.11bis as to registered post is also directory. The basic test, in deciding as to the imperative nature of a provision, is whether the Legislature expressly or impliedly visits non-compliance with nullity... And further, at 517 G H: [I]t is important for a claimant to be able to know when he may serve his summons, in other words, the exact date as from which the period of 60 days begins to run. We have already held that it runs as from the date when the letter containing the relevant information is (i) despatched (as distinct from delivered) by post or (ii) delivered manually, as the case may be. In the latter event the company is enjoined to acknowledge in writing the receipt thereof and the date of such receipt. Why? Clearly for the purpose of providing the claimant with proof of the date from which the statutory period begins to run, for the onus is on him to prove the expiration of a period of 60 days as from the date on which the claim was sent or delivered, as the case may be, before service of the summons.

6 6 He concluded his discussion of this aspect as follows at 518 A C: The provision just mentioned is therefore primarily one for the benefit of the claimant. And if he elects to send the claim by post, he is enjoined to register it. Why? Again, primarily to furnish him with proof of the date, by means of his registration slip, as from which the period of sixty days begins to run... [I]n a statute which sets out to give third parties the greatest possible protection, I see nothing incongruous about the Legislature directing a procedure for their benefit. If a claimant elects to eschew the facilities of proof indicated in the sub-section, that is his risk. In my view this procedural provision as to registering the posted claim is directory only. To hold that it is imperative, with non-compliance being visited with nullity, would in my view subvert the scope and object of the Act to give the greatest possible protection to third parties. [11] Clarke s case, of course, dealt only with posting and did not deal at all with the procedure for delivery by hand. As can be seen from the quote above, Holmes JA distinguished between posting and delivery. [12] The ordinary meaning of deliver has been held to be to place in possession (Ficksburg Transport (Edms) Bpk v Rautenbach en n Ander 1988 (1) SA 318 (A) at 332G-H). In Amcoal Collieries Ltd v Truter 1990 (1) SA 1 (A), an option had been granted. The contract contained the following phrase Die partye kies die volgende adresse vir bediening van kennisgewings kragtens hierdie kontrak Notice of acceptance of the option was placed under the door of the address chosen by the respondent in his absence. The respondent denied that the appellant had validly exercised the option,

7 7 contending that it had only come to his attention after his return and after the last date for the exercise of the option. The court a quo held that bediening meant service or betekening. The court rejected this on appeal where Nicholas AJA said the following (at 5A-B): In my opinion the word 'bediening' was used by the parties for 'diening', and 'dien' means (vide Die Afrikaanse Woordeboek (op cit )) 'besorg', 'afgee', 'aflewer'. It does not necessarily connote personal service. It was argued on behalf of Truter that on a proper interpretation of clause 15 it required delivery to 'die eienaar' and that the address indicated no more than the place where 'die eienaar' was to be found. The clause is not capable of bearing that construction. It states that 'die partye kies die volgende adresse...' and then goes on to particularise 'die partye' - viz 'die eienaar' and 'die prospekteerder' - and their respective addresses for service. The court therefore equated bediening with aflewering and specifically held that is does not connote personal service where an address is given. [13] The matter of Konstantinou v Allianz Insurance Ltd and Others 1992 (2) SA (N) dealt with section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 84 of 1986 ( section 14(2) ). Section 14(2) had to do with the interruption to prescription after the expiration of a period of 90 days from the date on which the appointed agent delivers to the claimant or his representative per registered post or by hand a notice either to repudiate liability or make an offer of settlement. McLaren J noted that this section required delivery as distinct from section 15(1)(b), another precursor to section 24(1)(b) of the Act. Section 15(1)(b), like section 24(1)(b) of the Act, retained the two procedures

8 8 of being sent by post or delivered by hand dealt with by Holmes JA. In Konstantinou, McLaren J noted that no such distinction was made in section 14 (2) in that the section required the communication to be delivered (not sent) by post or by hand. He held, therefore, that the 90 day period only commenced when the letter was placed in possession of the claimant by hand or was actually received by the claimant after having been posted. In arriving at this conclusion, McLaren J said the following (at 168E): The delivery by hand envisaged in ss 14(2) and 15(1)(b) of the Act can only mean that the recipient of the notice or claim for compensation must be placed in possession thereof, by hand. The delivery by registered post prescribed in s 14(2) of the Act should, therefore, also mean that the claimant or his representative should be placed in possession of the notice, by registered post. [14] The Amcoal and Konstantiou cases make it clear that what is required is that delivery takes place when a person is placed in possession of the relevant documentation. Whether this happened in the present matter requires an assessment of whether the plaintiff proved that depositing the claim into the box amounted to the defendant being placed in possession of the claim. Two elements are essential for possession, animus and detentio (Nienaber v Stuckey 1946 AD 1049). The defendant had physical control over the box. The evidence of Ms Ramroop is to the effect that the defendant regarded documents deposited into the box as having been received by it on the day they were placed there. Both the physical and mental elements were accordingly present. The defendant was thus placed in possession of the claim when Ramnarain deposited the claim by hand in the box. I am of the

9 9 view, therefore, that the claim was delivered by hand when it was placed in the box at approximately 14h00 on 28 March [15] To the extent that the dictum of McLaren J may be construed to require hand to hand delivery in order to have placed the claim in the possession of the defendant, it is clear that, in relation to section 15(1)(b), it is obiter since the case concerned only the interpretation of section 14(2). Even if it were not which, as indicated above, I doubt, I am in respectful disagreement with it. In the first place, the Amcoal case makes it clear that personal service in not required to effect delivery to a specified address. Section 15(1)(b) specifies the principal, branch or regional office of the defendant or, if delivered to an agent, the agent s registered office or local branch office. In the second place, Section 14(2) related to delivery to a claimant, a natural person whereas both section 15(1)(b) and section 24(1)(b) of the Act relate to delivery to either a company or an artificial person created by statute. An artificial person cannot itself receive delivery into a hand since it can act only through human agency. In the third place, the section does not specify delivery to a hand, only delivery by hand. [16] Even if I am wrong in this, however, the words of Holmes JA are no less applicable to a delivery by hand provided for in section 24(1)(b) of the Act than they were to posting. The procedure of delivery by hand and the requirement that the defendant receipt the claim are intended to benefit a claimant. Neither of these is imperative for a claimant. If a claimant does not avail herself of the facility of proof arising from these procedures, she simply

10 10 makes it more difficult to prove delivery on a specific date. As mentioned above, the plaintiff was assisted by the evidence of Ms Ramroop that the deposit of a claim into the box in question was regarded as delivery on the working day on which it was deposited. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the evidence of Ramnarain to the effect that she deposited the claim in the box at approximately 14h00 on 28 March 2002, therefore proved delivery to the defendant on that date. [17] In addition, as pointed out by Holmes JA in Clarke s case, the courts have constantly reaffirmed the scope and purpose of the Act as being to afford to claimants the greatest possible protection (see also Engelbrecht v Road Accident Fund and Another 2007 (6) SA 96 (CC) at 102, para [23]). Had the defendant not regarded a deposit into the box as delivery it was required to have staff available to receive claims during working hours. If it had not done so, the defendant would have rendered unavailable to the plaintiff the means to hand deliver a claim that afternoon. [18] I am accordingly of the view that the learned magistrate erred in upholding the special plea. [19] As regards the issue of costs, Section 24(1)(b) enjoins the defendant to acknowledge receipt thereof and the date of such receipt in writing. The defendant failed to comply with this clear statutory imperative by having staff available to receipt hand delivered claims that afternoon. This forms one of the two procedures provided to claimants by the legislature to facilitate proof

11 11 of the date of delivery. Had an employee of the defendant been present that afternoon to receive and receipt claims, there would have been no argument as to the date on which the claim form was delivered and thus no special plea. This fact renders the raising of the special plea vexatious and should be visited with a punitive costs order. Mr Pillay confined his request for a punitive costs order to the costs of the appeal since the evidence at the trial made it clear that the claim had been delivered in time. Mr Mazibuko, who appeared for the defendant, commended himself with the candour with which, in my view, he quite properly conceded this point in argument as well as that the conduct of the defendant in not having staff available to receive and receipt hand delivered claims that afternoon was unacceptable. He was instructed to oppose the punitive costs order but was unable to make any contrary submissions with any force. [20] Since the issue dealt with at the trial necessitated proof by the plaintiff that her claim was duly delivered on 28 March 2002, this should have formed one of the issues dealt with in the separation order and in the order made by the learned magistrate. [21] In the result, the appeal is upheld with costs on the scale as between attorney and client. The order of the magistrate is set aside and the following order is substituted: 1. The special plea is dismissed with costs, including the costs of preparation for the argument.

12 12 2. It is declared that the claim form of the plaintiff was duly delivered to the defendant by hand within the meaning of those words in section 24(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 on 28 March GORVEN J VAN ZŸL J 18 DECEMBER 2008 For the appellant: L Pillay SC instructed by Sha Kumar & Associates For the respondent: GL Mazibuko (attorney) instructed by Linda Mazibuko & Associates

Case No 128/88 whn. AMCOAL COLLIERIES LIMITED Appellant. and. JOHN EDMUND TRUTER Respondent

Case No 128/88 whn. AMCOAL COLLIERIES LIMITED Appellant. and. JOHN EDMUND TRUTER Respondent Case No 128/88 whn AMCOAL COLLIERIES LIMITED Appellant and JOHN EDMUND TRUTER Respondent NICHOLAS A J A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: AMCOAL COLLIERIES

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No 470/96 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: SANTAM LIMITED Appellant and MOHAMED NAEEM SAYED Respondent CORAM: VAN HEERDEN DCJ, HOWIE, PLEWMAN JJA, FARLAM et NGOEPE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: LEON BOSMAN N.O. IZAK

More information

MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS JUDGMENT

MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS JUDGMENT MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS FORUM : SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE : MALAN AJA CASE NO : 640/06 DATE : 28 NOVEMBER 2007 JUDGMENT Judgement: Malan AJA: [1] This is an appeal with leave of the

More information

Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Le Grange The Hon. Mr Binns-Ward The Hon. Ms Acting Justice Magona

Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Le Grange The Hon. Mr Binns-Ward The Hon. Ms Acting Justice Magona Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Appeal Case No: A371/2013 Trial Case No. 4673/2005 Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Le Grange The Hon. Mr Binns-Ward

More information

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. : 3861/2013 In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI Applicant and MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL

More information

IN 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: 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 information

[1] The plaintiff instituted action against the defendant for damages to the

[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 information

(3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;... <'

(3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;... <' CASE N0:768/2013 DELETE WHJCHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: vpo (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: y(ino (3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;....

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE 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

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT FIRST NATIONAL BANK A DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT FIRST NATIONAL BANK A DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case no: 1054/2013 FIRST NATIONAL BANK A DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED APPELLANT and CLEAR CREEK TRADING 12 (PTY)

More information

Republic 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 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 information

IN 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 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 information

SUPREME 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. 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 information

NONTSAPO GETRUDE BANGANI THE LAND REFORM THE REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION FULL BENCH APPEAL JUDGMENT

NONTSAPO GETRUDE BANGANI THE LAND REFORM THE REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION FULL BENCH APPEAL JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) APPEAL CASE NO. CA25/2016 Reportable Yes / No In the matter between: NONTSAPO GETRUDE BANGANI Appellant and THE MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE Case number: 29/04 In the matter between: EKKEHARD CREUTZBURG EMIL EICH Appellant 1 st Appellant 2 nd and COMMERCIAL BANK

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. ethekwini MUNICIPALITY

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. ethekwini MUNICIPALITY THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 1068/2016 In the matter between: ethekwini MUNICIPALITY APPELLANT and MOUNTHAVEN (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT Neutral citation: ethekwini

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN) IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN) Appeal no. A233/2014 In the matter between: BLUE CHIP 2 (PTY) LTD t/a BLUE CHIP 49 Appellant and CEDRIC DEAN RYNEVELDT & 26 OTHERS

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT ARENDSNES SWEEFSPOOR CC

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT ARENDSNES SWEEFSPOOR CC THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case no: 471/12 ARENDSNES SWEEFSPOOR CC Appellant and DALIA MARCELLE BOTHA Respondent Neutral citation: Arendsnes

More information

POTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE JUDGMENT

POTPALE 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 information

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG J U D G M E N T

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. 8774/09 In the matter between: THULANI SIFISO MAZIBUKO AMBROSE SIMPHIWE CEBEKHULU FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case No: 245/13 ELLERINE BROTHERS (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and McCARTHY LIMITED RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Ellerine Bros

More information

MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

MEC 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

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 754/2012 In the matter between: SOLENTA AVIATION (PTY) LTD Appellant and AVIATION @ WORK (PTY) LIMITED Respondent Neutral citation:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG In the matter between: MANYE RICHARD MOROKA and ZIMBALI COUNTRY CLUB JUDGMENT NOT REPORTABLE CASE NO: AR207/2016 APPELLANT RESPONDENT

More information

PANDURANGA SIVALINGA DASS NO First Plaintiff. ASOKAN POOGESEN NAIDU NO Second Plaintiff. SANDAKRISARAN NAIDU NO Third Plaintiff

PANDURANGA 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO.: 15830/13 (1) (2) (3) REPORTABLE: YES / NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO REVISED. In the matter between: LERATO AND MOLOKO EVENTS

More information

FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, GRAHAMSTOWN

FORM 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 information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: 42384/14

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: 42384/14 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 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Non-Reportable THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Non-Reportable THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Non-Reportable In the matter between: Case no: 1040/2017 ANDILE SILATSHA APPELLANT and THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES RESPONDENT Neutral citation:

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

THE 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 information

JUDGMENT. Belet Industries CC t/a Belet Cellular. MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd

JUDGMENT. 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 information

IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG MARTHINUS JOHANNES LAUFS DATE OF HEARING : 28 OCTOBER 2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01 DECEMBER 2016

IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG MARTHINUS JOHANNES LAUFS DATE OF HEARING : 28 OCTOBER 2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01 DECEMBER 2016 Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG In the matter between: CASE NO:

More information

THE 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 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 information

CAPE 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) 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 information

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$15.20 WINDHOEK - 7 November 2014 No. 5608 CONTENTS Page GOVERNMENT NOTICES No. 227 Amendment of Rules of High Court of Namibia: High Court Act, 1990... 1

More information

Coram: HOEXTER, NESTADT et MILNE JJA, FRIEDMAN et GOLDSTONE AJJA.

Coram: HOEXTER, NESTADT et MILNE JJA, FRIEDMAN et GOLDSTONE AJJA. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) CASE NUMBER 524/88 LOWER COURTNUMBER12272/86 In the matter between: STANDARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED APPELLANT and VERDUN ESTATES (PROPRIETARY)

More information

PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO: AR 348/16. Judgment

PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO: AR 348/16. Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO: AR 348/16 In the matter between: Rashid Gani Appellant and A Singh Respondent Judgment Lopes J [1] The appellant in the

More information

IN 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 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 information

IN 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. 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 information

NICK S FISHMONGER HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD ALMON MANUEL ALVES DE SOUSA DEFENDANT CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM IN CONTRACT CONTRACT PROVIDING

NICK 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 information

REPUBLIC 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 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA In the matter between: RICHARD POLLOCK N.O. MATOME JOSEPH N.O. (In their capacity as the joint liquidators of MTB Transport

More information

UNIT 8: HANDLING OF CLAIMS

UNIT 8: HANDLING OF CLAIMS UNIT 8: HANDLING OF CLAIMS 74 Learning outcomes After completing Unit 8, you should be able to do the following: Identify the claimants who are either fully or partially incapacitated as well as those

More information

IN 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. 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OF SOUTH AFRICA APPEAL REPORTABLE Case Number : 010 / 2002 In the matter between ROY SELWYN COHEN Appellant and BRENDA COHEN (born Coleman) Respondent Composition

More information

JUDGMENT. 1 I am required to decide the disputes disclosed by the defendant's. special plea of prescription raised in defence to the plaintiffs claim.

JUDGMENT. 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 information

GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED

GUTSCHE 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 information

Case No.: 2708/2014 Date heard: 09 October 2014 Date delivered: 10 October In the matter between: Second Applicant. and.

Case 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 information

150/85 125/83/AV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: PHONE-A-COPY WORLDWIDE (PROPRIETARY) AND

150/85 125/83/AV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: PHONE-A-COPY WORLDWIDE (PROPRIETARY) AND 150/85 125/83/AV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: PHONE-A-COPY WORLDWIDE (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED Appellant AND JOHANNA MARTHA ORKIN WILLIAM DOUGLAS ARMSTRONG

More information

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. DAVID MBALEKI First Appellant. AFRICA MGQAMBI Second Appellant. THE STATE Respondent

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. DAVID MBALEKI First Appellant. AFRICA MGQAMBI Second Appellant. THE STATE Respondent IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 2853/2011 In the matter between DAVID MBALEKI First Appellant AFRICA MGQAMBI Second Appellant versus THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Auction Alliance (Pty) Ltd

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Auction Alliance (Pty) Ltd ` THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not reportable In the matter between: Case no: 342/16 Auction Alliance (Pty) Ltd APPELLANT and Wade Park (Pty) Ltd RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Auction

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL AUTHORITIES PENSION FUND

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL AUTHORITIES PENSION FUND THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 994/2013 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL AUTHORITIES PENSION FUND APPELLANT and MSUNDUZI MUNICIPALITY RESPONDENT Neutral

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No 195/97 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: GUARDIAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant and MATTHEW STEPHEN CHARLES SEARLE N O Respondent CORAM: VIVIER, HOWIE,

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MANONG & ASSOCIATES (PTY) LTD. EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE 1 st Respondent NATIONAL TREASURY

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MANONG & ASSOCIATES (PTY) LTD. EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE 1 st Respondent NATIONAL TREASURY THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 331/08 MANONG & ASSOCIATES (PTY) LTD Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF ROADS & TRANSPORT, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE 1 st Respondent NATIONAL

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA THE MINISTER OF LAW AND ORDER. RABIE, CJ, CORBETT, KOTZE, TRENGOVE et

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA THE MINISTER OF LAW AND ORDER. RABIE, CJ, CORBETT, KOTZE, TRENGOVE et IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between : THE MINISTER OF LAW AND ORDER Appellant and STUART DREW PATTERSON Respondent Coram : RABIE, CJ, CORBETT, KOTZE, TRENGOVE

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 162/10 In the matter between: THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE and SAIRA ESSA PRODUCTIONS CC SAIRA ESSA MARK CORLETT

More information

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KRAMER WEIHMANN & JOUBERT INC

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KRAMER WEIHMANN & JOUBERT INC FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the application between:- KRAMER WEIHMANN & JOUBERT INC Application No: 3818/2011 Plaintiff and SOUTH AFRICAN COMERCIAL CATERING AND ALLIED

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CRONIMET CHROME PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD

THE 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 information

CAPE TOWN IRON & STEEL

CAPE TOWN IRON & STEEL Case No 70/95 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between SA METAL & MACHINERY CO (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and CAPE TOWN IRON & STEEL WORKS (PTY) LTD NATIONAL METAL (PTY)

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D933/13 ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY Applicant and IMATU obo VIJAY NAIDOO Respondents Heard: 12 August 2014 Delivered: 13 August 2015

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no 332/08 In the matter between: ABSA BROKERS (PTY) LTD Appellant and RMB FINANCIAL SERVICES RMB ASSET MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD MOMENTUM DISTRIBUTION

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT FIRST NATIONAL BANK (A DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK LTD) FIRST APPELLANT SCENEMATIC ONE (PTY) LTD

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT FIRST NATIONAL BANK (A DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK LTD) FIRST APPELLANT SCENEMATIC ONE (PTY) LTD THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 20832/14 In the matter between: FIRST NATIONAL BANK (A DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK LTD) FIRST APPELLANT THOMAS JOHANNES NAUDE

More information

[1] The applicants apply on notice of motion for the ejectment of. the respondent from an immovable property owned by them, on the

[1] The applicants apply on notice of motion for the ejectment of. the respondent from an immovable property owned by them, on the REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION CASE NO. 6090/2006 In the matter between: GOPAUL SEWPERSADH ROSHNI DEVI SEWPERSADH SECOND APPLICANT FIRST APPLICANT and SURIAPRAKASH

More information

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NUMBER : 745/2009 In the matter between MARTHA MARIA MAGDELENA STARITA (a.k.a. VAN JAARSVELD) Applicant and ABSA BANK LIMITED

More information

IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA SERVAAS DANIEL DE KOCK

IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA SERVAAS DANIEL DE KOCK 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 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

More information

LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I PRELIMINARY

LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I PRELIMINARY Statutory Instrument 150 of 2017 LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017 SI 150/2017, 8/2018. ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I PRELIMINARY Rule 1. Title. 2. Application. 3. Interpretation. 4. Computation of time and certain

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable CASE NO: 82/2015 In the matter between: TRUSTCO GROUP INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and VODACOM (PTY) LTD THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS FIRST

More information

HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)

HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) (1) REPORTABLE: Electronic publishing. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No (3) REVISED...... Case No. 2015/11210 In the matter between:

More information

6. The salient facts of this matter are as follows: (i) The plaintiff was employed by a tenant at the Menlyn mall, owned by the defendant.

6. The salient facts of this matter are as follows: (i) The plaintiff was employed by a tenant at the Menlyn mall, owned by the defendant. IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA Case number 35421/2009 YVONNE MAUD NIEMAND Plaintiff and OLD MUTUAL INVESTMENT GROUP PROPERTY INVESTMENT (PTY)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA. ABDOOL KADER MOOSA N.O...First Appellant. MAHOMED FEROUSE MOOSA N.O...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA. ABDOOL KADER MOOSA N.O...First Appellant. MAHOMED FEROUSE MOOSA N.O... 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 information

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA WHITELEYS CONSTRUCTION

FREE 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 information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Not Reportable Case no: 20714/14 LORRAINE DU PREEZ APPELLANT and TORNEL PROPS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Du Preez

More information

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

CONSTITUTIONAL 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 information

IN 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 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 information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. LUC ARTHUR FRANCE CHRETIEN First Appellant CAROL ANNE CHRETIEN Second Appellant

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. LUC ARTHUR FRANCE CHRETIEN First Appellant CAROL ANNE CHRETIEN Second Appellant THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 52/09 LUC ARTHUR FRANCE CHRETIEN First Appellant CAROL ANNE CHRETIEN Second Appellant and LINDA STEWART BELL Respondent Neutral citation:

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT HOS+MED MEDICAL AID SCHEME

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT HOS+MED MEDICAL AID SCHEME THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable CASE NO:015/07 In the matter between HOS+MED MEDICAL AID SCHEME APPELLANT and THEBE YA BOPHELO HEALTHCARE MARKETING & CONSULTING

More information

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA, MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK RULING ON SPECIAL PLEA ARANDIS LUBRICATION SERVICES CC

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA, MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK RULING ON SPECIAL PLEA ARANDIS LUBRICATION SERVICES CC REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA NOT REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA, MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK RULING ON SPECIAL PLEA CASE NO. I 3616 /2014 In the matter between: ARANDIS LUBRICATION SERVICES CC PLAINTIFF And ERONGO

More information

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA 1 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 3394/2014 In the matter between: AIR TREATMENT ENGINEERING AND MAINTENANCE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2014/12763 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED

More information

Applicant M E C FOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Applicant M E C FOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Sneller Verbatim/ IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable CASE NO: J5675/00 DATE OF HEARING 2002 06 10 In the matter between: and Applicant M E C FOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Respondent J U D

More information

TACTICAL REACTION SERVICES CC...Plaintiff. BEVERLEY ESTATE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION...Defendant J U D G M E N T

TACTICAL REACTION SERVICES CC...Plaintiff. BEVERLEY ESTATE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION...Defendant J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2007/16441 DATE: 05/11/2010 In the matter between: TACTICAL REACTION SERVICES CC...Plaintiff and BEVERLEY ESTATE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION...Defendant

More information

IN 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 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 information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE 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

IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.:1573/10 ERAVIN CONSTRUCTION CC. TWIN OAKS ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS (Pty) Ltd DEFENDANT

IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.:1573/10 ERAVIN CONSTRUCTION CC. TWIN OAKS ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS (Pty) Ltd DEFENDANT IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.:1573/10 In the matter between: ERAVIN CONSTRUCTION CC PLAINTIFF and TWIN OAKS ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS (Pty) Ltd DEFENDANT CIVIL MATTER KGOELE J DATE OF HEARING

More information

Civil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number:

Civil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number: 1 Civil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number: 883833 QUESTION 1: M issues summons against N for damages as a result of breach

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE 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

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) GROUP FIVE CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LIMITED Plaintiff

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) GROUP FIVE CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LIMITED Plaintiff IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) Date: 2010-05-05 In the matter between: Case Number: 39161/05 GROUP FIVE CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LIMITED Plaintiff and THE MINISTER OF

More information

Labour Court Rules, 2006 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I

Labour Court Rules, 2006 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw VERITAS MAKES EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THE PROVISION OF RELIABLE INFORMATION, BUT CANNOT TAKE LEGAL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KWAZULU NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KWAZULU NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KWAZULU NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. DR345/11 In the matter between: THE STATE and MONGEZI DUMA SPECIAL REVIEW JUDGMENT Delivered on 16/8/2011 NDLOVU J

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 1362/16 In the matter between: THE STATE APPELLANT and NKOKETSANG ELLIOT PILANE RESPONDENT Neutral Citation: The State v Pilane

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN. Case No.: 14639/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN. Case No.: 14639/2017 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 WESTERN CAPE

More information

KHATHUTSHELO GLADYS MASINDI. Neutral citation: Road Accident Fund v Masindi (586/2017) [2018] ZASCA 94 (1 June 2018)

KHATHUTSHELO GLADYS MASINDI. Neutral citation: Road Accident Fund v Masindi (586/2017) [2018] ZASCA 94 (1 June 2018) THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Reportable Case no: 586/2017 ROAD ACCIDENT FUND APPELLANT and KHATHUTSHELO GLADYS MASINDI RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Road Accident

More information

Part 44 Alberta Divorce Rules

Part 44 Alberta Divorce Rules R561.1-562.1 Part 44 Alberta Divorce Rules Forms will be found in Schedule B Definitions 561.1 In this Part, (a) Act means the Divorce Act (Canada) (RSC 1985, c3 (2nd) Supp.); (b) divorce proceeding means

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY) 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 Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to

More information

CHAPTER 9 PEREMPTORY AND DIRECTORY PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 9 PEREMPTORY AND DIRECTORY PROVISIONS CHAPTER 9 PEREMPTORY AND DIRECTORY PROVISIONS 9.1 General introduction * When legislation prohibits an act (conduct) or prescribes the manner in which it must be performed, it may be necessary to determine

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES LIMITED INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE PAINTING SERVICES CC

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES LIMITED INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE PAINTING SERVICES CC THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 448/07 RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES LIMITED Appellant and INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE PAINTING SERVICES CC Respondent Neutral citation: Rustenburg Platinum

More information

Republic 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) 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, EAST LONDON CIRCUIT DIVISION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, EAST LONDON CIRCUIT DIVISION) IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, EAST LONDON CIRCUIT DIVISION) In the matter between: Case no. EL 282/14 ECD 582/14 SIYABONGA SOGAXA Applicant and MINISTER OF POLICE INFORMATION OFFICER,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D. 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D. 2015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D. 2015 CLAIM NO.369 OF 2015 BETWEEN (BERNARD LESLIE ( (AND ( (RACHEL BATTLE (MICHAEL BATTLE (REGISTRAR OF LANDS ----- CLAIMANT DEFENDANTS INTERESTED PARTY BEFORE THE

More information