IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) CASE NO: 2159/97
|
|
- Annis Wiggins
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) CASE NO: 2159/97 In the matter between: LESLIE NEIL SACKSTEIN N.O. FLORIS JOHANNES LORDAN N.O FIRST PLAINTIFF SECOND PLAINTIFF and THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING, BISHO FIRST DEFENDANT THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, BISHO SECOND DEFENDANT JUDGMENT VAN RENSBURG, J: This action was set down for trial on 25 th February On the morning of the trial, before the trial commenced, I was called upon to adjudicate on an application brought by David James Kruger and Johannes Gysbertus Roos as first and second applicants respectively, in which application the applicants seek an order substituting them as plaintiffs in the action in their capacities as trustees for the time being of the H & H Trust.
2 2 The application was opposed by the first and second defendants, who are the respondents in the application. In the Notice of Motion which is dated 25 th February 2002 the applicants seek an order in the following terms: (a) substituting as Plaintiffs in the present proceedings, Johannes Gysbertus Roos N.O. and David James Kruger N.O. in their capacities as Trustees for the time being of the H&H Trust in the name, place and stead of the present Plaintiffs, Floris Johannes Lordan N.O. and Lesley Neil Sackstein N.O. in their capacities as Joint Liquidators of Thaba Construction (Proprietary) Limited; b) directing that Respondents costs incurred in connection with and incidental to this Application on the basis of an unopposed Applicant, be paid by the said Kruger and Roos in their capacities aforesaid, alternatively and in the event only of First and Second Respondents opposing this Application c) directing that the costs of and incidental to any opposition to these proceedings be paid by First and Second Respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved; d) granting the Applicants, David James Kruger and Johannes Gysbertus Roos (in their capacities as Trustees of the H&H Trust
3 3 aforesaid) such further or alternative relief as my be appropriate; In order to deal with the application it is necessary to set out the background facts: a) On 21 st July 1998 the Master of the High Court in Grahamstown duly registered the H&H Trust under number IT 1267/98. b) The present applicants were duly appointed as trustees of the trust. c) During December 1997 the plaintiffs, in their capacities a liquidators of Thaba Construction (Pty) Ltd. (in liquidation) instituted action against the respondents as defendants. The action comprised two claims. The first claim is for an amount of R together with interest and costs. The second claim is for an amount of R plus interest and costs. The said two claims were in respect monies allegedly owed by the respondents to Thaba Construction in respect of building work undertaken by Thaba construction in terms of certain building contracts entered into between Thaba construction and the respondents. d) Summons in the said action was issued on 8 th December 1997 and it is not in dispute that the summons was served on the respondent s on 18 th December, e) The respondents initially contested both claims. They did not, however, persist with their defence in respect of the first claim and Summary Judgment was granted in favour of the Plaintiffs on that claim. f) The action has now come to court on the second claim, namely the claim
4 4 for R g) On 22 nd July 1998, before litis contestatio, the plaintiff s ceded their right, title and interest in and to the second claim to the applicants. It is on these facts that the applicants, as cessionaries, now seek to be substituted as plaintiffs in the action. The application is opposed by the respondents. Mr. Smuts, who appeared on behalf of the respondents, argued that the effect of an order substituting the cessionaries for the cedents as plaintiffs would be that the cessionaries would become the plaintiffs in the action nunc pro tunc. He went on to argue that bearing in mind that the cession of the plaintiffs claim took place on 22 July 1998 and that the application for substitution was only served on the defendants attorneys on 25 th February 2002, some three and a half years after the session had taken place, the claim of the cessionaries has prescribed. In these circumstances, (so the argument went) the granting of an application for substitution at this stage would be prejudicial to the defendants because it would deprive them of the right to raise the defence of prescription against the cessionaries. For this reason it was argued that the application for substitution should be dismissed. Mr. Louw, who appeared on behalf of the applicants, argued that the cession took place after the plaintiffs had issued a valid summons in respect of the claim, which they subsequently ceded. He argued that the service of the summons interrupted the running of the prescription in respect of the claim contained in the summons. He submitted that what was bestowed on the applicants by the
5 5 cession was a claim in respect of which the running of prescription had been interrupted by the service of the summons. Mr. Louw argued that in circumstances where the service of summons interrupts the running of prescription, such interruption does not come to an end unless the court dismisses the action on account of delay in the prosecution thereof. He accordingly submitted that the application for substitution should be granted. Where, as in the present matter, there has been an out and out cession by a plaintiff of his claim, after the issue of summons, the cessionary is thereafter the only person entitled to enforce the claim against the debtor. This is so because the effect of an out and out cession is to transfer all the plaintiff s right, title and interest in the claim to the cessionary, thereby depriving the cedent of any further interest in the claim. Kotsopoulos v Bilardi 1970 (2) SA 391 (c) at 398 F. Thos. Barlow & Sons (Natal) Ltd v Dorman Long (Africa) Ltd. and Another 1976 (3) SA 97 (D&CLD) at 103 E F. Standard General Insurance Co. Ltd v Eli Lilly (SA) (Pty) Ltd (FBC Holdings (PTY)Ltd, Third Party 1996 (1) SA 382 (w) at 385 F H. Goodwin Stable Trust v Duohex (Pty) Ltd and Another 1998 (4) SA 606 (c) at 622 J 623D. In such circumstances it is necessary for the cessionary to approach the court for an order substituting him as plaintiff before the action can proceed. The court will grant an order for substitution unless the granting thereof will cause
6 6 prejudice to the defendant. Friedman v Woolfson 1970 (3) SA 521 (D&CLD) at 526 H 527 A. In support of his argument that the granting of an order for substitution would cause prejudice to the defendant in that the effect of such an order would be to deprive the defendant of the right to raise the defence of prescription, Mr. Smuts referred me to Barrie Marais & Seuns and Another v Eli Lilly (SA) (Pty) Ltd and others 1995 (1) SA 469 (W) at 472 B C. The passage referred to by Mr. Smuts does not, however, support his argument. That passage merely sets out the argument advanced by counsel for the defendant and does not reflect the decision of the court. In the Barrie Marais case the plaintiffs ceded their claim to Standard and General Insurance Company Limited (Stangen) before the issue of summons. Thereafter summons was issued in the name of the plaintiffs notwithstanding the fact that they had already ceded their claim and accordingly had no further interest in the claim. The defendant filed a special plea contesting the locus standi of the plaintiffs to have instituted the action. The plaintiffs thereafter brought an application for the amendment of their summons by substituting the cessionary of their claim, Stangen, as plaintiff in their stead. The application was opposed by the defendant on the basis that the summons was a nullity. It was further argued on behalf of the defendant that the granting of an order for substitution would be prejudicial to the defendant in that the effect thereof would be to deny the defendant the right to raise the defence of prescription, the claim having already prescribed. Notwithstanding the defendant s opposition, van Schalkwyk, J held that the action instituted by the
7 7 plaintiff s was not a nullity and the learned Judge granted the application for the substitution of Stangen as Plaintiff. The defendant subsequently filed a special plea to the claim, as amended, in terms of which the defendant alleged that the only process within the meaning of section 15 (1) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 whereby Stangen, as plaintiff, claimed payment of the debt was the amendment and that by the date of the amendment the debt had already prescribed. In these circumstances the defendant sought an order dismissing the plaintiff s claim. The special plea was adjudicated on by Streicher, J in Standard General Insurance Co Ltd v Eli Lilly (SA) (Pty) Ltd 1996 (1) SA 382 (W). Streicher, J after considering several authorities found that he was unable to support the finding of Van Schalkwyk, J in the Barrie Marais case (supra) to the effect that a cedent can institute action as agent for the cessionary. In the Standard General Insurance Co case (supra) at 385 G H Streicher, J has the following to say in this regard: The question to be decided is therefore whether the claim in the summons by which action was instituted in the name of Barrie Marais & Seuns en Skoukop (Pty) Ltd against the defendant was a claim by the creditor of the debt. By ceding the debt Barrie Marais & Seuns and Skoukop (Pty) Ltd transferred all their rights in respect of their claims against the defendant to Stangen. As from the time that the debt was ceded they were no longer creditors of the defendant. Stangen became the creditor and only Stangen could sue upon the debt (see Katz v Katzenellenbogen and Others 1955 (3) SA 188 (T) at 190H LTA Engineering Co Ltd v Seacat
8 8 Investments Ltd 1974 (1) SA 747 (A) at 762A; Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd v MCC Contracts (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 77 (A) at 87G H). It follows that unless the summons issued in the name of Barrie Marais & Seuns and Skoukop (Pty) Ltd constituted a process whereby Stangen claimed payment of the debt, the summons did not constitute a process whereby the creditor claimed payment of the debt and the service of the summons could not have interrupted the running of prescription in respect of the debt. The learned Judge continues as follows at 387H: As I have already indicated prescription can only be interrupted by process whereby the creditor claims payment of the debt. Before the amendment the creditor of the debt had not claimed payment of the debt and by the time that the amendment was applied for the debt had already become prescribed. In the result Streicher, J upheld the special plea and dismissed the plaintiff s claim with costs. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusions arrived at by Streicher, J. The Standard General Insurance Co case (supra) is distinguishable from the present matter in that the cession in that case took place before the issue of summons and accordingly the summons issued in the names of the cedents was from the outset incapable of interrupting prescription. In the present matter at the time of the service of the summons, the plaintiffs were the creditors of the defendant. It was only at a later stage that the plaintiffs ceded their claim to Stangen.
9 9 I proceed now to consider whether on the facts of the present matter the applicants, as cessionaries of the plaintiffs claim, are at this stage entitled to an order substituting them as plaintiffs in the action. The case of Grindrod (Pty) Ltd v Seaman 1998 (2) SA 347 (c), to which neither counsel referred me during argument, is very much in point where this issue is concerned. In that case the plaintiff had issued summons and served it on the defendant on 1 st November 1994, seeking to hold the defendant liable as surety for an amount owing to the plaintiff by Republic Shoes (Pty) Ltd. On 9 th November 1994 the plaintiff and credit Guarantee entered into an agreement which purported to cede the plaintiff s rights to Credit Guarantee. For purposes of the judgment it was assumed that the agreement constituted a cession. In its plea the defendant denied the plaintiff s locus standi to sue. The plaintiff thereafter sought to amend its particulars of claim to aver that during March 1997 Credit Guarantee ceded back to the plaintiff all its right, title and interest to its claims against the defendant. The defendant objected to the amendment contending that the plaintiff acquired a new cause of action as a result of the recession to it of the original claim. It was argued on behalf of the defendant that in the circumstances the summons had not interrupted the running of prescription and that the claim which the plaintiff sought to enforce on the strength of the recession had prescribed. Foxcroft, J dismissed the application to amend. In dismissing the application the learned Judge had the following to say at p 352 I J: What has happened in the present matter, in my view, is that although plaintiff is the same company which issued the summons in 1994, a new party was indeed introduced into this case in March 1997 when plaintiff, which had lost its right of action, regained it. This was no different than
10 10 some other party becoming plaintiff, and entitled to an award by the Court if successful. Foxcroft, J after analysing the judgment in the Standard General Insurance Co case (supra), continues as follows at 354 D 355 A: In the matter before me plaintiff as creditor issued summons and thereby interrupted the running of prescription. The moment plaintiff ceded its rights, it divested itself of its right of action. Put simply, it was no longer the creditor. I agree, with respect, with the view of Streicher J and with the submissions by Mr Seligson that s 15(1) of the Prescription Act must be interpreted to mean that the running of prescription will be interrupted by service on the debtor of any process whereby the creditor claims payment of the debt, so long as the true creditor continues to proceed with the litigation which has been commenced. If a creditor sues and then loses its right of action it is highly artificial to treat its service, when possessed of the right, as an interruption of the running of prescription which will continue for its benefit after the loss of its right of action. I also agree with the submission that, once the cause of action is ceded to the cessionary, the cessionary is obliged to take steps to regularise his position as a new party by way of, at least, an application to be substituted as plaintiff. The cessionary is the holder of the cause of action by reason of the cession, but has no right of action to proceed in the case already instituted by the cedent until he becomes substituted as plaintiff. It was common cause before me that the cessionary, Credit Guarantee, had not made any application to substitute itself as plaintiff and had not
11 11 served another summons against defendant. Indeed, the argument of Mr Van Blerk was that no cession had ever occurred. Once the cessionary was in a position to interrupt the running of prescription against it as the new holder of the cause of action and did not do so for the period of prescription which started running in February 1994, it lost its potential right of action. When it therefore purported to cede back to plaintiff the cause of action which it had acquired from plaintiff in November 1994, the period of prescription had run and the debt had become extinguished. Credit Guarantee could naturally not cede back to plaintiff an effective right of action which it had already lost. No purpose would be served in allowing the amendment sought, only to have it dismissed after the success of a special plea. As Flemming DJP put it in Stroud v Steel Engineering Co Ltd, it would make no sense to permit a claim which is known to have prescribed. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by Foxcroft, J. In the present matter it is not in issue that the period of prescription of the claim had long since elapsed by the date on which the application for substitution was served on the defendants, it being contended on behalf of the applicants that the applicants were entitled to rely on the fact that service of summons had interrupted the running of prescription and continued to do so even after the plaintiffs had ceded their claim to the applicants. The present applicants find themselves in the same position as the plaintiff found itself in the Grindrod case (supra).
12 12 The plaintiffs as creditors issued summons against the defendants. The service of summons on the defendants on 18 th December 1997 had the effect of interrupting the running of prescription against the plaintiffs in terms of section 15 (1) of Act 68 of 1969, the debt not yet having become prescribed by the date of service. Had the plaintiffs proceeded with their claim under the summons to final judgment, there would have been no problem. However, on 22 nd July 1998 the plaintiff s ceded all their right, title and interest to the claim to the applicants. By so doing the plaintiffs divested themselves of their right of action. In terms of section 15 (2) of Act 68 of 1969, the plaintiffs, not having successfully prosecuted their claim under the summons to final judgment, the interruption of prescription lapsed when they ceded their claim and it was thereafter deemed that prescription had never been interrupted by the service of summons. This being so, the argument that the service of summons continued to interrupt the running of prescription even after the plaintiffs had ceded their claim cannot be upheld. Once the claim had been ceded new parties in the form of the applicants were introduced into the case. They had not previously been parties to the action and there was a duty on them to take the necessary steps to have themselves substituted as plaintiffs, or to issue a new summons citing them as plaintiffs, before the claim prescribed. In these circumstances, should I grant the application for the applicants to be substituted as plaintiffs at this stage, the defendants would be seriously prejudiced in that they would be denied the right to raise the defence of prescription. See Associated Paint and Chemical Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Albestra Paint and Lacquers v Smit 2000 (2) SA 789 (SCA).
13 13 I have not been persuaded that the applicants have made out a case on the papers to support the argument advanced by Mr. Louw to the effect that the defendants have by their conduct waived the right to rely on the defence of prescription. In all the circumstances, I am of the view that the application should be refused and that the costs should follow the result. Without a substitution of the applicants as plaintiffs the action cannot proceed because the present plaintiff s, having ceded their claim, do not have the necessary locus standi to continue with the action. In the circumstances I have no option but to dismiss the action with the customary costs order. In the result I make the following order: a) The application is dismissed with costs; b) The Plaintiffs action is dismissed with costs. J F J VAN RENSBURG JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
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 informationTHE 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 informationGUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4490/2015 DATE HEARD: 02/03/2017 DATE DELIVERED: 30/03/2017 In the matter between GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 12189/2014 ABSA BANK LIMITED Applicant And RUTH SUSAN HAREMZA Respondent
More informationMATTHEUS GERHARDUS KRUGER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: MATTHEUS GERHARDUS KRUGER
More informationNon-existent plaintiff Dealing with misdecriptions in citations. By Fareed Moosa
Non-existent plaintiff Dealing with misdecriptions in citations By Fareed Moosa In HUV Cape Spice v Hotspice Sauces CC (WCC) (unreported case no 22227/2010, 10-5-2011) (Louw J) the respondent, Hotspice,
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED : 11 DECEMBER 2003
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE No: 97/1989 In the matter of CHRISTA SANFORD (born Steinbrecher) Plaintiff and PATRICIA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. AAA INVESTMENTS PROPRIETARY LIMITED Applicant. PETER MARK HUGO NO First Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NOT REPORTABLE EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN Case No.: 2088/10 & 2089/10 Date Heard: 19 August 2010 Date Delivered:16 September 2010 In the matters between: AAA INVESTMENTS
More informationIN 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 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) 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 informationTHE 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 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 In the matter between: RICHARD POLLOCK N.O. MATOME JOSEPH N.O. (In their capacity as the joint liquidators of MTB Transport
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 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 informationOFFICE 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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 175/2016 In the matter between: DEEZ REALTORS CC t/a FIRZT REALTY COMPANY DENESE ZASLANSKY SOLOMON ZASLANSKY FIRST APPELLANT
More informationREUBEN ITUMELENG TODI MEC FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: 751/2005 In the matter between:- REUBEN ITUMELENG TODI Plaintiff and MEC FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT First Defendant OF NORTH WEST RESPONSIBLE FOR HEALTH
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) APPEAL CASE NO : A5044/09 DATE: 18/08/2010 In the matter between:
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) APPEAL CASE NO : A5044/09 DATE: 18/08/2010 In the matter between: HENRY GEORGE DAVID COCHRANE Appellant (Respondent a quo) and THE
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, GRAHAMSTOWN
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, GRAHAMSTOWN NOT REPORTABLE PARTIES: MBANJWA INC AND ALBANY AUTO TRIMMERS Registrar: CA 127/09 Magistrate: High Court: EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, GRAHAMSTOWN
More 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 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 HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NROTH GAUTENG HIGH CURT, PRETORIA) ^
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NROTH GAUTENG HIGH CURT, PRETORIA) ^ Jo^^ajf Case No: 24265/01 In the matter between: CLIPSAL SOUTh AppjPA /PTV) I IMITFn D.ICANT DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICA (FORMERLY
More information18:11 PREVIOUS CHAPTER
TITLE 18 Chapter 18:11 TITLE 18 PREVIOUS CHAPTER FARMERS STOP-ORDER ACT Act 53/1963, 41/1977, 24/1982,22/2001; R.G.Ns. 214/1964, 217/1970. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation.
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 informationIBHUBHEZI POWERLINES CC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: 5011/2015 283/2016 Date heard: 02 June 2016 Date delivered: 08 September 2016 In the matter between: IBHUBHEZI POWERLINES CC
More informationIMPERIAL BANK LIMITED EUROPEAN METAL TRADING (AFRICA) (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED REASONS FOR THE ORDER HANDED DOWN ON 10 AUGUST 2010
IN THE KWAZULU NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case Number: 2820/2010 2821/2010 2822/2010 2823/2010 2824/2010 2825/2010 2826/2010 2829/2010 In the matter between: IMPERIAL BANK LIMITED
More informationEASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. 4187/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. 4187/2015 In the matter between: ABSA BANK LIMITED Applicant and THOMAS JAMES COOMBS Respondent JUDGMENT Bloem J. [1] On 26
More informationBefore: 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 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 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 informationJUDGMENT. 1 I am required to decide the disputes disclosed by the defendant's. special plea of prescription raised in defence to the plaintiffs claim.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 5664/2011 In the matter between: EDWARD THOMPSON Plaintiff and CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Defendant JUDGMENT Tuchten
More informationIN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and LAMBERT JAMES-SOOMER. and LAMBERT JAMES-SOOMER
SAINT LUCIA IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO.: SLUHCV 2003/0138 BETWEEN (1) MICHELE STEPHENSON (2) MAHALIA MARS (Qua Administratrices of the Estate of ANTHONY
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: 588/2007 THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Appellant and AUGUSTUS JOHN DE WITT Respondent Neutral citation: Minister of Safety and Security v De Witt
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED Case number: 39959/2014..... In the matter between: GR5
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL DIVISION, MAHIKENG SHAKE MULTI-SAVE SUPERMARKET CC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL DIVISION, MAHIKENG In the matter between: CASE NO: 413/12 SHAKE S MULTI-SAVE SUPERMARKET CC APPLICANT and HAFFEJEE, AHMED ABDUL HAY A I HAMPERS 1
More informationas amended by Apportionment of Damages Amendment Act 58 of 1971 (RSA) (RSA GG 3150) came into force on date of publication: 16 June 1971 ACT
(SA GG 5689) came into force in South Africa and South West Africa on date of publication: 1 June 1956 (see section 6 of Act) APPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA: Section 6 originally stated This Act shall
More informationIN THE 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley)
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Regional Magistrates Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley)
More 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 informationLAURITZEN BULKERS A/S PLAINTIFF THE MV CHENEBOURG DEFENDANT
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (Exercising its Admiralty Jurisdiction) Case No: AC210/2009 Name of Ship: MV CHENEBOURG In the matter between: LAURITZEN BULKERS A/S PLAINTIFF
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. : 3861/2013 In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI Applicant and MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL
More 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 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[1] The applicant initially instituted motion proceedings for certain relief against
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Application Number : 2538/2010 In the matter between:- NEDBANK LIMITED Applicant and CHAVONNE BADENHORST ST. CLAIR COOPER N.O. TSIU VINCENT
More information(Registration number..) of.. (The principal debtor, hereinafter referred to as the FRANCHISEE )
ANNEXURE E DEED OF SURETYSHIP Executed by (The SURETY ) (Hereinafter together referred to as the SURETY ) Being all the members/directors/shareholders of (Registration number..) of.. (The principal debtor,
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2014/24817 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 13 May 2016.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter
More 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 informationGAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) JUDGMENT. [1] On 13 April 2006 the Director-General of Public Works' (or his delegate) entered
IN THE In the matter between GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Case No: 3823/09 ti JSJzoto THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Excipient and KOVAC INVESTMENTS 289 (PTY)
More 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 informationLEARNING UNIT 2: THE LAW OF CONTRACT
LEARNING UNIT 2: THE LAW OF CONTRACT OBJECTIVES: Describe the essentials of a valid contract Explain the difference between a valid, void and voidable contract Explain the contractual capacity of minors
More informationCHAPTER 107 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS
Cap.107] CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS CHAPTER 107 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS Act No. 12 of 1968. AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW RELATING TO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) (1) REPORTABLE: YSS / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDC -ES:?SS/NO (3) REVISED. \] GNATURE Da t e: Case Number: 31805/08 In the matter
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable In the matter between: Case no: 288/2017 OCEAN ECHO PROPERTIES 327 CC FIRST APPELLANT ANGELO GIANNAROS SECOND APPELLANT and OLD MUTUAL LIFE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN. Case No: 1310/ /2010. In the matters between (Case No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Case No: 1310/2011 3110/2010 In the matters between (Case No. 1310/2011) ENGEN PETROLEUM LIMITED Plaintiff and VLOK PETROLEUM CC Defendant
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: 245/2016 BRAYTON CARLSWALD (PTY) LTD MARTINA BREWS FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT and GORDON DONALD BREWS
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 informationNONTSAPO 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 informationTHE 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) The Standard Bank Fund Managers Ltd. Lesotho National Life Assurance Co Ltd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO 4064/2002 In the matter between The Standard Bank of SA Ltd First Applicant The Standard Bank Fund Managers Ltd Second
More informationJUDGMENT: 8 NOVEMBER [1] This is an application by the Defendant to permit the joinder of Dr. Smith (the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No: 21453/10 In the matter between: MICHAEL DAVID VAN DEN HEEVER In his representative capacity on behalf of Pierre van den Heever
More informationINDIVIDUAL DEED OF SURETYSHIP
INDIVIDUAL DEED OF SURETYSHIP CUSTOMER:. SURETY:. Franke South Africa Pty Ltd Individual Deed of Suretyship Page 2 of 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS No. Clause Heading Page SCHEDULE... 2 1. SURETYSHIP... 2 2. WARRANTIES
More informationFARLAM, AP MOKGORO, AJA LOUW, AJA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU In the matter between C OF A (CIV) 4/2015 LESOTHO PUBLIC MOTOR TRANSPORT (PTY) LTD APPELLANT And LESOTHO BUS AND TAXI OWNERS ASSOCIATION ADV. BERNARD MOSOEUNYANE
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 339/09 MEC FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY Appellant (EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE) and TEMBA MTOKWANA Respondent Neutral citation: 2010) CORAM: MEC v Mtokwana
More informationREPORTABLE JUDGMENT. [1] The institution of co-ownership harbours a conflict between the rights of
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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN CORNELIS ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES N.O.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case no: 16920/2016 THE HABITAT COUNCIL Applicant v THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN CORNELIS ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES N.O. MICHAEL ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES
More information. o..~t:j.\.1: CASE NO: 67452/2015. In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED t/a WESBANK. Applicant. and LUVHOMBA LEGAL AXE CC.
(1) REPORTABLE: 't$l@ (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Y (3). o..~t:j.\.1: REVISED.. CASE NO: 67452/2015 In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED t/a WESBANK Applicant and LUVHOMBA LEGAL AXE CC Respondent
More informationdo hereby bind myself/ourselves jointly and severally, as surety/ies and co-principal debtor/s in solidum, to and in favour of
I/We, the undersigned, do hereby bind myself/ourselves jointly and severally, as surety/ies and co-principal debtor/s in solidum, to and in favour of (hereinafter styled "the creditor/s"), for the due
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
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 (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley)
More informationIn the matter between. Applicant. and. Second Respondent. Third Respondent. Fourth Respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DMSION,
More informationas amended by ACT To consolidate and amend the laws relating to prescription.
(RSA GG 2421) brought into force in South Africa and South West Africa on 1 December 1970 by RSA Proc. R.284/1970 (RSA GG 2922) (see section 21 of Act) APPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA: Section 21 states
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 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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MARK WILLIAM LYNN NO FIRST APPELLANT TINTSWALO ANNAH NANA MAKHUBELE NO SECOND APPELLANT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 687/10 In the matter between: MARK WILLIAM LYNN NO FIRST APPELLANT TINTSWALO ANNAH NANA MAKHUBELE NO SECOND APPELLANT and COLIN HENRY COREEJES
More informationIn the matter between: M. J. D. First Plaintiff S. G. D. Second Plaintiff N. F. D. Third Plaintiff N. P. Fourth Plaintiff
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION,
More informationREPUBLIC 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 informationyth Applicant IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the application between: JOSEPH FRANCOIS BOTHA
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 application between: APPLICATION NO:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) CASE NO: 1559/16 In the matter between: SIBONGISENI MGADI Applicant and XOLANI CALU First Respondent TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES
More information1] The applicant on 30 May 2002 applied for an order. winding up the respondent provisionally on the basis. that it is unable to pay its debts.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 4634/02 In the matter between: COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY (PTY) LTD Applicant And TECHNOBURN (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT:
More informationConcor Defined Contribution Pension Fund DETERMINATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 30M OF THE PENSION FUNDS ACT 24 OF 1956
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR In the complaint between: CASE NO: PFA/GA/608/04/Z/VIA Orbet Sibanyoni Complainant and Concor Holdings (Pty) Ltd First Respondent Concor Defined Contribution
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Circulate to Magistrates: Yes / No Reportable: Yes / No Circulate to Judges: Yes / No IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) Date heard: 2005 11 25 Date delivered: 2005 12 02 Case no:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 3, 2017
05/26/2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 3, 2017 CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, ET AL. v. TAX YEAR 2011 CITY DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS Appeal from the Chancery
More informationCoram: 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 informationTHE 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 informationIN THE GAUTENG DIVISION HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
1 IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Case Number: 31971/2011 Coram: Molefe J Heard: 21 July 2014 Delivered: 11 September 2014 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN 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) Case no: 15493/2014 NICOLENE HANEKOM APPLICANT v LIZETTE VOIGT N.O. LIZETTE VOIGT JANENE GERTRUIDA GOOSEN N.O.
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT MOKGAETJI BERNICE KEKANA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J 2536/12 In the matter between: MOKGAETJI BERNICE KEKANA Applicant and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
More informationCREDIT APPLICATION FORM
CREDIT APPLICATION FORM Creditor: CHANGLONG TRADING (PTY) LTD. Applicant: By completing the credit application form the author declare that he/she is duly authorized to complete this customer application
More informationHeinrich Schulze BLC LLB (UP) LLD (Unisa) is a professor of law at Unisa.
The law reports Heinrich Schulze BLC LLB (UP) LLD (Unisa) is a professor of law at Unisa. September 2014 (5) South African Law Reports (pp 1 316); [2014] 3 All South African Law Reports August no 1 (pp
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the case between:- Case No. : 5495/2011 KRUGER HERMAN UTOPIA CONSTRUCTION CC Reg no 2002/001529/23 First Applicant Second Applicant en SET-MAK
More informationDEED OF SURETYSHIP. in favour of INTERMEDIARIES GUARANTEE FACILITY LIMITED. Surety in solidum for and co-principal debtor with
Page 1 of 8 DEED OF SURETYSHIP By in favour of INTERMEDIARIES GUARANTEE FACILITY LIMITED Surety in solidum for and co-principal debtor with Page 2 of 8 DEED OF SURETYSHIP WHEREAS 1. Regulation 4 issued
More informationCAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Vivier Adcj, Howie JA and Brand AJA
CAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Citation Case No 495/99 Court Judge 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Supreme Court of Appeal Heard August 28, 2001 Vivier
More 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 informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 18 OCTOBER 2004
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE No: 924/2004 In the matter of NEDCOR BANK LTD Applicant and LISINFO 61 TRADING (PTY) LTD
More informationThe first plaintiff is a businessman who was acting as an agent of the. terms of the laws of the Republic of South Africa.
2 Introduction 1. This matter came to court by way of action. The first plaintiff is a businessman who was acting as an agent of the second, third and fourth plaintiffs who are all companies registered
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA) CASE NO.: 943/2007. In the matter between: And
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA) In the matter between: THABO MTHEMBU CASE NO.: 943/2007 Plaintiff And MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION, EASTERN CAPE BUYISILE ZOKO
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO: 03/03539 DATE:26/10/2011 In the matter between: TECMED (PTY) LIMITED MILFORD, MICHAEL VOI HARRY BEGERE, WERNER HURWITZ,
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED 08 SEPTEMBER 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Reportable Case no. 6802/2013 In the matter between: JOHAN DURR Excipient /Plaintiff and LE NOE NEELS BARNARDT CHARLES DICKINSON First
More informationFederal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Commencement: 1st May 2000 In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and all powers
More information