JUDGMENT AND REASONS INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS / POSTPONEMENT
|
|
- Clarence Barton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION CASE NO: In the matter between: MR PRICE GROUP LIMITED and NATIONAL CREDIT REGULA TOR APPLICANT RESPONDENT lnre: THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULA TOR and MR PRICE GROUP LIMITED APPLICANT RESPONDENT Coram: Ms P Beck Adv J Simpson MrF Sibanda Presiding Member Member Member Date of Hearing: Date of Judgment: 15 May June 2018 JUDGMENT AND REASONS INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS / POSTPONEMENT PARTIES 1 The Applicant in this matter, who is the Respondent in the main matter, is Mr Price Group Limited, a credit provider registered with the National Credit Regulator (NCR), with registration number NCRCP46 ("the Respondent") and whose principal address is at 4th Floor, 380 West Street, Durban KwaZulu Natal.
2 2 The Respondent in this matter, who is the Applicant in the main matter, is the National Credit Regulator, a juristic person established in terms of Section 12 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2007 ("the Act") and situated at number 127, Fifteenth Road, Randjespark, Midrand. 3 For purposes of convenience and ease of reference the parties shall be cited as in the main matter. 4 At the hearing the Applicant was represented by Ms Anna Karien du Plooy, assisted by Ms Nthupang Magolego and Ms Kathrine Germishuys. 5 The Respondent was represented by Advocate Marilena Maddison, from the Cape Bar, instructed by Norton Rose Attorneys. APPLICATION TYPE 6 This application is brought in terms of Rule 4(2) of the Tribunal Rules1 which provides that- "/f an application relates to a matter contemplated in rule 3(2)(c) that is not specifically provided for in Table 2, the Applicant must- (a) apply by way of Notice of Motion in Form Tl.r4; (b) append a supporting affidavit setting out the facts on which the application is based; (c) serve the Notice and affidavit on the Respondent and other parties to the matter; and (d) file the application documents and proof of service with the Registrar." 7 In terms of Rule 3(2)(c) the Tribunal may consider applications related to an adjudication process with respect to, among other things, other procedural matters. 8 Thus, the Applicant in this case seeks an order from the Tribunal to - (1) stay the proceedings until after the matter which the Applicant brought against Edcon Holdings Limited under case number NCT /35378/2015/140( 1) (the Edcon matter) has been finally determined; 1Rules for the Conduct of Matters before the National Consumer Tribunal. General Notice 789 in Government Gazette No of 28 August 2007 Page 2 of 11
3 (2) in the alternative to (1) above, and in the event of the Tribunal determining that these proceedings should not be stayed (a) that the matter be set down on a date to be agreed to between the parties and the Tribunal, being not less than eight weeks after such agreement is reached, further alternatively, if the matter will not be set down on an agreed date, (b} that the matter be set down on not less than ten weeks' notice to the parties; and (3) direct the Applicant to pay the costs of this application in the event that it is opposed. 9 The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter. BACKGROUND 10 In the main matter; the Applicant initiated an investigation into the business affairs of the Respondent. This was following a reasonable suspicion created that the Respondent might be charging consumers a club fee on credit agreements in contravention of sections 100, 101 and 102 of the Act. 11 According to the Applicant, the basis of the investigation against the Respondent was a referral to this Tribunal by the Applicant, against Edcon Holdings Limited, a clothing retailer and registered credit provider alleged to have charged consumers a club fee in contravention of the Act. The Applicant had made other referrals to the Tribunal relating to the charging of club fees on credit agreements by furniture retailers Lewis Stores (Pty) Limited and JOG Trading (Pty) Limited, under case numbers NCT/41671/2016/140(1) and NCT/29052/2015/1340(1), respectively. 12 The Applicant further states that it perused the Respondent's annual report for the financial year ending March 2015 and discovered that the Respondent reported income generated from club fees. Page 3 of 11
4 13 On this basis the Applicant proceeded to initiate a complaint in its own name in terms of section 136(2) of the Act and carried out an investigation against the Respondent, after which it made a referral to the Tribunal in terms of section 140(1) of the Act. THE HEARING 14 This matter was initially set down to be heard on 19 February However, the Respondent applied for a postponement on the basis that - (1) the Respondent had not received a response to its correspondence to the Tribunal seeking a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the High Court appeal in the Edcon Group Limited v NCR matter; and (2) both of the Respondent's counsel were not available to appear at the Tribunal on the date of the hearing. 15 The Applicant did not oppose the application for postponement. The matter was accordingly removed from the roll, to be set down at a later stage for a hearing on the merits unless an application in terms of Rule 4 of the Tribunal Rules is filed by the Respondent as directed by the Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal. 16 Accordingly, on 20 February 2018 the Respondent lodged an application in terms of Rule 4 of the Tribunal Rules for a stay of proceedings. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 17 The Tribunal must decide whether: 17.1 it has powers to stay proceedings; and 17.2 it can grant the orders sought. Page 4 of 11
5 RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS 18 The Respondent avers that the issues brought by the Applicant in the main matter against it are substantially similar to those which arise in the proceedings launched by the Applicant in the Edcon matter. 19 In the Edcon matter; the Applicant alleged that Edcon charged its customers club fees under credit agreements, in contravention of section 100, 101 and 102, read with section 90 of the Act. 20 On 24 April 2018 the Tribunal handed down its judgment in the Edcon matter. That judgment is now the subject of an appeal at the North Gauteng High Court. 21 According to the Respondent, it would be prudent to stay the main proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal, in order to avoid the incurrence of unnecessary costs and the wasting of the Tribunal's time and resources. 22 The Respondent further asks the Tribunal to, in the alternative; a stay proceedings, grant an order or issue directives that (a) the matter be set down on a date to be agreed between the parties and the Tribunal, being not less than eight weeks after such agreement, or alternatively if the matter will not be set down on agreed date (b) the matter be set down on not less than ten weeks' notice to the parties, to permit the Respondent to brief new counsel if necessary. APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS 23 The Applicant filed an answering affidavit opposing the Respondent's application for a stay of proceedings. The following are some of the arguments raised by the Applicant in its answer and elaborated in its heads of argument handed out at the beginning of the hearing. 24 The Applicant disputes that the Tribunal is competent to make an order to stay proceedings given that there is no provision in the Act, its Regulations or Tribunal Rules for such an order. Page 5 of 11
6 Moreover, the Tribunal is not a court with inherent jurisdiction to exercise discretion in the granting of such relief. 25 To underscore this position the Applicant refers to Rule 10 of the Tribunal Rules which provides that- "A person wishing to bring before the Tribunal a matter which is not listed in rule 3, or otherwise provided far in these rules, must first apply to the High Court for a declaratory order confirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction - (a) to deal with the matter; (b) to grant the order to be sought from the Tribunal. ff 26 In any event. the Applicant argues that the Respondent has failed to advance any reason on which the stay of proceedings can be granted and that convenience is not a requirement for such an application to succeed. 27 The Applicant submits that the application to stay proceedings is an attempt by the Respondent to delay finalisation of the main matter and in the end consumers will suffer serious injustice should the application be granted. 28 The Applicant further argues that a stay of proceedings is not a procedural matter; but a substantive one; that has the effect of suspending the adjudicative process; and cannot be taken based on speculation and hypothetical outcome of the court of appeal in the Edcon matter. ANALYSIS OF THE LAW AND THE FACTS 29 Rule 4(2) of the Tribunal Rules provides thatu/f an application relates to a matter contemplated in rule 3(2)(c) that is not specifically provided for in Table 2, the Applicant must - {a) apply by way of Notice of Motion in Form Tl.r4; (b) append a supporting affidavit setting out the facts on which the application is based; Page 6 of 11
7 (c) serve the Notice and affidavit on the Respondent and other parties to the matter; and (d) file the application documents and proof of service with the Registrar. n 30 It is common cause that a stay of proceedings is not provided for in Table 2 of the Tribunal Rules, hence the Respondent applied by way of Notice of Motion using Form Tl.r4. Rule 3(2)(c)(vii) further provides that - "The Tribunal may- (c) consider applications related to an adjudication process - (vii) relating to other procedural matters." 31 Whilst the Applicant disputes that an application for a stay of proceedings is a procedural matter, according to the Respondent the question of when the main proceedings should be heard is a matter of procedure, which the Tribunal is authorised by the Act and its Rules to determine. 32 In Minister of Public Works v MXN Development Construction CC2, when considering an application for a stay of proceedings the court stated that - "It is trite that superior courts in this country possess inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of their process' by staying proceedings in certain circumstances... n 33 Similarly, in Ntswaki Joyce Mokona v Tassos Properties CC and another4, when dealing with the question of the stay of proceedings, it was pointed out that the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the High Court of South Africa each has the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process and to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justices. According to the judge - 2 Minister of Public Works v MXN Development Construction. High Court of South Africa. CC Case no: 7015/2006 J Own emphasis 4 Ntswaki Joyce Mokone v Tassos Properties CC and another. Constitutional Court of South Africa. Case No. CCT 113/16 and 291/16 s Section 173 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Page 7 of 11
8 NCR v Mr Price Group limited NCT/81672/2017 /140( 1) "Put simply, this says the mentioned Courts may regulate their own process6, taking into account the interests of justice." 34 From the above, and without necessarily pronouncing on the issue, it can be argued that the issue is a procedural one and the Tribunal can grant such an order if the circumstances justify it. 35 However, the main question that this Tribunal perhaps has to grapple with is whether there is any reasonable basis for granting such an order under the circumstances described. 36 In New Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd v Chicks Scrap Metal (Pty) Ltd et ap the legal requirements for adjudicaling a stay of proceedings were summarized as follows: (a) Whether the respondents have succeeded in showing that they have a basis in law for the Court's discretion to stay the proceedings; (b) If so, whether the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the respondents to grant a stay of proceedings; and (c) Whether the respondents are bona fide in seeking a stay of the proceedings. 37 Thus the onus is on the Respondent to show good cause and b~sis in law for its application to stay the proceedings. In George Talbot Spencer and others v Xolisa Kennedy Memani and anothet6 the court held that- "For a defence of /is alibi pendens to succeed, more is required than a mere overlapping of some of the issues in two or more cases." 38 However, when asked whether there is any precedent or case law to support the arguments on whether the Tribunal has powers to grant a stay of proceedings on the same basis on which the Respondent is arguing, Ms Maddison stated that - s Own emphasis r 2602/11 Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban Republic of South Africa, 2011 a {675/12) [2013} ZASCA146 (1 October 2013) Page 8 of 11
9 Judgment and Reasons "No, I do not have any, but can I respond by saying that perhaps the use of the phrase stay was too technical. That is why I have tried to emphasise that what we are really asking for here, and I hope that that will have come through in the papers filed in support of the application, is that the matter simply not be set down until the EDCON appeal has been heard. Whether that is technically a stay or whether or not that is simply a deferment of the set down, that is all we ask for is that procedurally the matter not be set down until EDCON has been determined. The conventional stay situations arising in court are, as our friends have mentioned, where the case is vexatious or where security for costs are sought. That is not the scenario we are dealing with here. We are dealing with an unusual scenario where what we say is that it is not the same parties litigating elsewhere so it is not /is pendens or anything like that, but what it is a similar matter, a substantially similar matter, the outcome of which may at the very least be persuasive to this tribunal and that in those circumstances it makes sense to defer the set down.~ 39 According to the Respondent, it is not raising a defence of tis pendens or anything similar. Rather, the Respondent's case seems to be premised on its assertion that this and the Edcon matters are substantially similar, hence it will be a waste of both the parties' and the Tribunal's resources to continue with a hearing that may ultimately prove to be unnecessary. 40 When followed through, this assertion bears the hallmarks of a highly optimistic pre-emption of the outcome of both the merits of the main matter and the Edcon matter. 41 It would be dereliction of its duty for the Tribunal to stay or postpone the main matter on the basis of proceedings in another forum where the Respondent is not a party and the outcome of which is indeterminate. Moreover, by its own admission, the Respondent has raised a number of additional arguments in the main proceedings that were not previously considered by the Tribunal when it determined the Edcon matter, despite there being substantial similarity in the issues in the main proceedings and the issues in the Edcon matter It is worth repeating what the Tribunal stated in Leen 'n Rand and the National Credit Regulatortt thatuour Courts have held that a court or a Tribunal should not easily divest itself of jurisdiction. Courts do not act on abstract ideas of justice and equity but s Page 29 of hearings transcript 10 Para 10. Respondents' Heads of Argument 11 Leen 'n Rand and the National Credit Regulator, NCT/78950/2017/57/(1) Page 9 of 11
10 must act on principle. n This principle is, in the case of the Tribunal, that the final judgement in the main matter is not a foregone conclusion. The Tribunal, after hearing the evidence, may reach a verdict in favour of the Respondent or the Applicant. If it went against a Respondent, that Respondent still has the right to approach a higher court. n 43 Whilst the Tribunal has powers to postpone matters, such discretion has to be exercised judiciously, taking into account various factors including whether justice will be served by such a postponement. We have not found precedent to support the Respondent's application and hence, we are not persuaded that it will be in the interest of justice to grant this application. CONCLUSION 44 The Respondent has not shown good cause nor has it advanced legal precedent upon which the Tribunal can rely in granting the application to stay, postpone or hold in abeyance the main matter, pending the outcome of the Edcon matter. 45 By necessity however, the matter will be set down for hearing and the date for the hearing will need to accommodate the legal counsel for the parties involved. This then provides for the alternative application by the Respondent. ORDER 46 Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following order: The Respondent's application for the stay of proceedings, postponement or holding in abeyance of the main matter pending the outcome of the Edcon matter is dismissed; 46.2 The Registrar will set the matter down for hearing after due consultation with the parties for a suitable date when their legal counsel is available; and 46.3 There is no order as to costs. 12 See Williamson v Schoon SA 1053 {T) Page 10 of 11
11 DATED IN CENTURION ON THIS DAY OF JUNE 2018 [signed] Mr FK Sibanda (Member} Ms P Beck (Presiding Member) and Adv J Simpson (Member) concurring. Authorised for Issue by National C onsumer Tribunal Case Numt:t r. NCT,l<KU, I z../'lo 7 r I t '±t>_(1) Date:JS: J-, "'<. 1..o,c( Hatlon.:il Consumer Tribunal. I( Ground Floor, Building 8 ~ Ybficld Office Park 272 West Avenue c., entunon 0167 \iyinw.thenct.ca.t;a i n~ onllj cr,n5 utt10:r tr,t,..u., J I =-4-.. Page 11 of 11
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION Case number: In the matter between: NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR - APPLICANT and LEWIS STORES (PTY) LTD - RESPONDENT Coram: Prof. T. Woker Presiding Member
More informationNew Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd. JUDGMENT Delivered on: 16 November [1] This is an application lodged by first and second respondent
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between Case No: 2602/11 New Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd Applicant and Chicks Scrap Metal (Pty) Ltd Robert Jacques Thomas
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION Case number: NCT/22130/2015/55(6) NCA In the matter between: THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR APPLICANT And CITY FINANCE RESPONDENT Coram: Mrs. H Devraj
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL, HELD AT PRETORIA
national consumer tribunal IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL, HELD AT PRETORIA Case No.: NCT/09/2008/57(1) (P) In the matter between SHOSHOLOZA FINANCE CC Applicant And NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR Respondent
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD AT CENTURION Case number: (1) In the matter between: NOZIPHO ANGEL LANGA APPLICANT and LORENCO LEWIS 1 ST RESPONDENT AFRICAN BANK LIMITED FOSCHINI RETAIL GROUP (PTY)
More informationIn the matter between:
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION Case Number: NCT/17829/2014/ 75 (1) (b) In the matter between: BANDERA TRADING AND PROJECTS CC APPLICANT and KIA MOTORS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD T/A KIA
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION Case number: In the matter between: NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR APPLICANT (Respondent in the main matter) and MORTGAGE SECURED FINANCE (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT
More information4th RESPONDENT. Coram: IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION. Case number: NCT/79160/2017/165. In the matter between: ASSA BANK LIMITED
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION Case number: NCT/79160/2017/165 In the matter between: ASSA BANK LIMITED APPLICANT and BEN SAGER (NCRDC: 2484) NONHLANHLA CORAH NXELE SIFISO LUCKY MTHETHWA
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION In the matter between: Case number: NCT/43934/2016/75(1) (b) SJPHESIHLE CLEMENT HLAKANIPHA MIYA and APPLICANT MIWAY INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
More informationRULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE LABOUR COURT. as promulgated by. Government Notice 1665 of 14 October 1996.
RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE LABOUR COURT as promulgated by Government Notice 1665 of 14 October 1996 as amended by Government Notice R961 in Government Gazette 18142 of 11 July 1997 [with
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 30037/2015 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
More informationCivil 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 informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD AT CENTURION MOBILE TELEPHONE NETWORKS (PTY) LTD THE NATIONAL CONSUMER COMMISSION
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD AT CENTURION Case No: In The Matter Between: MOBILE TELEPHONE NETWORKS (PTY) LTD Applicant and THE NATIONAL CONSUMER COMMISSION Respondent DATE OF HEARING: 10 and
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN SIVAPRAGASEN KRISHANAMURTHI NAIDU
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL
More informationIN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT PRETORIA CASE NO: PSES /14 NAT
IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT PRETORIA CASE NO: PSES 776-13/14 NAT In the matter between: SADTU Applicant and DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION Respondent RULING ON POINTS IN LIMINE 1.
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION HANS REINHARD PETTENBURGER-PERWALD OBO JOHANNES PETRUS VAN VUUREN
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG CASE NO: 2080/2009 In the matter between:- P SMIT Applicant and CHRISNA VENTER Respondent DATE OF HEARING : 30 JANUARY 2014 DATE OF JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY] JUDGMENT ON LEAVE TO APPEAL Reportable: YES / NO Circulate to Judges: YES / NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO CASE NR : 1322/2012
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: J 965/18 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION ( SAMWU ) Applicant and MXOLISI QINA MILTON MYOLWA SIVIWE
More informationCOMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In an application to compel between: COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.: CR162Oct15/ARI187Dec16 WBHO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Applicant And THE COMPETITION COMMISSION GROUP FIVE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: J 1499/17 LATOYA SAMANTHA SMITH CHRISTINAH MOKGADI MAHLANE First Applicant Second Applicant and OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE MEMME SEJOSENGWE
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
More informationJUDGMENT- LEAVE TO EXECUTE
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2010/22522 DATE:19/09/2011 REPORTABLE In the matter between: PELLOW N.O. ALLAN DAVID 1 st Applicant KOKA N.O. JERRY SEKETE 2 nd Applicant INVESTEC BANK LTD
More informationENOCH MGIJIMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY MILOWO TRADING ENTERPRISE JUDGMENT. [1] This is an opposed application brought on urgency for the suspension of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: 528/2018 Date Heard: 29 May 2018 Date Delivered: 12 June 2018 In the matter between: ENOCH MGIJIMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: J1529/15 BONGA BLADWIN MAJOLA Applicant and MEC FOR ROADS & TRANSPORT: GAUTENG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT First Respondent HOD FOR ROADS
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. SA SOLIDARITY obo MT BOOI & 22 OTHERS. TECHNISTRUT (PTY) LTD t/a SELATI ROOFS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS381/12 SA SOLIDARITY obo MT BOOI & 22 OTHERS Applicants and TECHNISTRUT (PTY) LTD t/a SELATI ROOFS Respondent Delivered: 15 July
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN PIETER WILLEM DU PLOOY OOS VRYSTAAT KAAP BEDRYF BEPERK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between Case No: 5277/2014 PIETER WILLEM DU PLOOY APPLICANT and OOS VRYSTAAT KAAP BEDRYF BEPERK RESPONDENT CORAM: NAIDOO,
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA BOLLORE AFRICA LOGISTICS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD BOLLORE TRADING AND INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CASE NO: CT004AUG2017 BOLLORE AFRICA LOGISTICS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Applicant (Registration Number: 2012/013416/07) and
More informationCOMPETITION TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 18/CR/Mar01 In the matter concerning: The Competition Commission and South African Airways (Pty) Ltd DECISION This is an application brought by the
More informationJennifer Ann van den Berg. Jan Albert Jacobus van den Berg. JUDGMENT Delivered on 17 July 2013
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matters of: CASE NO. 10598/12 Brian Lambert Kurz N.O. Mark John Perrow N.O. First Applicant Second Applicant and Jennifer
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION. Case No.: 4576/2006. In the matter between:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION Case No.: 4576/2006 In the matter between: EN BM DM EJM LMI MAZ MSM N D N S SEM TJX T S VPM ZPM LM2 TREATMENT ACTION CAMPAIGN and THE GOVERNMENT
More informationJN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION JUDGMENT AND REASONS
JN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION In the matter between: THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR APPLICANT and SATINSKY 128 (PTY) LTD tla JUST GROUP AFRICA RESPONDENT Coram: Ms D Terblanche - Presiding
More information(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: ES/ NO [lf};jj_ JUDGMENT. 1 SSG Security Solutions (Pty) Limited (SSG) and the second
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 67027/17 In the matter between: SSG SECURITY SOLUTIONS (PTY) LIMITED Applicant (1) REPORTABLE: ES/ NO and (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
More informationREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK RULING ON APPLICATION TO STAY DECLARATION OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY EXECUTABLE
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK RULING ON APPLICATION TO STAY DECLARATION OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY EXECUTABLE Case no: HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON-2016/04122 In the matter between:
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NUMBER: 30726/2009 DATE: 26 SEPTEMBER 2014 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES In the matter between:
More informationCOMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case/File Number: CT012Jan2015 In the matter between: LEGAL EXPENSES INSURANCE SOUTHERN AFRICA LTD Applicant and WISE-UP TRADING AND PROJECTS CC (2011/067571/23) Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 14231/14 In the matter between: PETER McHENDRY APPLICANT and WYNAND LOUW GREEFF FIRST RESPONDENT RENSCHE GREEFF SECOND RESPONDENT
More informationKARL FEIGNER Plaintiff/Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL, DURBAN CASE: 438/2010 In the matter between: KARL FEIGNER Plaintiff/Respondent vs THE BODY CORPORATE First Defendant/Applicant OF THE LIGHTHOUSE MALL JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO:83409/2015 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... DATE
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CASE NO: CT001APR2017 PWC Business Trust APPLICANT AND PWC Group (Pty) Ltd RESPONDENT Issue for determination: Objection
More informationIN THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT PRETORIA) COMPUTICKET (PTY) LTD THE COMPETITION COMMISSION
IN THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT PRETORIA) Case No: 20/CR/Apr10 In the interlocutory applications of: COMPUTICKET (PTY) LTD Applicant And THE COMPETITION COMMISSION Respondent In Re:
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JS 1505/16 In the matter between: MOQHAKA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant and FUSI JOHN MOTLOUNG SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT,
More informationIN THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA. COMPETITION COMMISSION Applicant
IN THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CT CASE NO: 134/CR/DEC07 SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES LIMITED First Applicant SAB s APPOINTED DISTRIBUTORS (2 nd -14 th Respondents) Second Applicant and COMPETITION
More informationCGSO Dear Queen 1. INTRODUCTION
ENSafrica 150 West Street Sandton Johannesburg South Africa 2196 P O Box 783347 Sandton South Africa 2146 Docex 152 Randburg tel +2711 269 7600 info@ensafrica.com cgso CGSO queenm@cgso.org.za 14112017
More informationCOMPANIES TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
COMPANIES TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case Number CT003JUN2018 In the matter between; SOUTHERN AFRICAN MUSIC RIGHTS ORGANISATION NPC (SAMRO) (A non-profit Company, with Registration Number 1961/002506/08)
More informationNCUBE v DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG)
1 of 6 2012/11/06 03:08 PM NCUBE v DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG) 2010 (6) SA p166 Citation 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG) Case No 41/2009 Court Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA MINISTER OF HEALTH AND OTHERS TREATMENT ACTION CAMPAIGN AND OTHERS JUDGMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 9/02 MINISTER OF HEALTH AND OTHERS Appellants versus TREATMENT ACTION CAMPAIGN AND OTHERS Respondents Heard on : 3 April 2002 Decided on : 4 April 2002 Reasons
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE ) n i c r yyv i 0 (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) ;2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YBS/NO. (3) REVISED. / /l \ CASE No. 60892/2011
More information/SG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWA-ZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWA-ZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN In the matter between: CASE NO.: 11174/15 NAYESAN REDDY Applicant And LERENDAREN REDDY SHERIFF OF THE COURT, DURBAN COASTAL SHERIFF
More informationJUDGMENT MBATHA J IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: 9167/07. In the matter between:
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC
More informationNEW: LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL WEBSITE The website for the Legal Practice Council can be accessed at
+27 (0)12 366 8800 LSSA@LSSA.ORG.ZA LSSA NEWSLETTER 20 DECEMBER 2018 IN THIS EDITION 1. Legal Practice Council website 2. LPC Code of Conduct for public comment 3. Have your say on proposed Court Rule
More informationTHE 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 informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. JOHN BUTI MATLADI on behalf of the MATLADI FAMILY
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 42/13 [2013] ZACC 21 In the matter between: JOHN BUTI MATLADI on behalf of the MATLADI FAMILY Applicant and GREATER TUBATSE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ANGLORAND HOLDINGS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 2011 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 2011 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE Appellant v BCB HOLDINGS LIMITED and THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED Respondents BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Dennis
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL, DURBAN CASE NO: 13338/2008 NHLANHLA AZARIAH GASA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL, DURBAN CASE NO: 13338/2008 In the matter between: NHLANHLA AZARIAH GASA Applicant and CAMILLA JANE SINGH N.O. First Respondent ANGELINE S NENHLANHLA GASA
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 156/15 MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR HEALTH, GAUTENG Applicant and VUYISILE EUNICE LUSHABA Respondent Neutral citation: MEC for
More informationCASE NO: JS1034/2001. ENSEMBLE TRADING 341 (PTY) LIMITED Second Respondent JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: and CASE NO: JS1034/2001 Applicant First Respondent ENSEMBLE TRADING 341 (PTY) LIMITED Second Respondent JUDGMENT FRANCIS J Introduction 1. The
More informationTHE 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 informationCOMPETITION TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. Case No: 69/AM/Dec01. In the matter between: and. 1 st Intervenor. Mike s Chicken (Pty) Ltd
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 69/AM/Dec01 In the matter between: Astral Foods Limited Applicant and Competition Commission Respondent Mike s Chicken (Pty) Ltd 1 st Intervenor Daybreak
More informationIN THE ELECTORAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE ELECTORAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: CASE NUMBER: 011/2016 EC NATIONAL FREEDOM PARTY (NFP) Applicant And THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION INKATHA FREEDOM PARTY
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION In the matter between: Case number: NCT/36112/2016/75(1)(b) DAVID LAZARUS 1 ST APPLICANT HAZEL SARKIN 2 ND APPLICANT And RDB PROJECT MANAGEMENT CC t/a
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ("THE TRIBUNAL") CASE NUMBER: CT005APR2017 In the matter of:
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ("THE TRIBUNAL") CASE NUMBER: CT005APR2017 In the matter of: MOS WEAR (PTY) LTD APPLICANT and MOS CLOTHING (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT Coram: PJ Veldhuizen
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN AROMA MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 29 MAY 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN In the matter between: CASE NO: 2625/2009 AROMA MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD Applicant and THE MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY THE NATIONAL
More informationEASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES JUDGMENT. 1] This is an application to have the respondent s name struck off the roll
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No.: 2232/2011 Date heard: 23 March 2012 Date delivered: 20 August 2012 EASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES Applicant
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
1 THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED... DATE... SIGNATURE CASE NO 2014/26048 PANAYIOTOU, ANDREAS APPLICANT
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CRONIMET CHROME PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 851/12 Not reportable In the matter between: CRONIMET CHROME MINING SA (PTY) LTD FIRST APPELLANT CRONIMET CHROME SA (PTY) LTD SECOND APPELLANT
More informationIN 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: Case Number: 13869/2015 BRUCE EARL GRIFFITHS Applicant and MMI GROUP LIMITED Respondent JUDGMENT Delivered
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT) MARK JONATHAN GOLDBERG NATIONAL MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL SECOND RESPONDENT FIFTH RESPONDENT
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT) Case No: 15927/12 In the matter between: MARK JONATHAN GOLDBERG APPLICANT and PROVINCIAL MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
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 KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 2813/2010 In the matter between: HENDRIK JOHANNES VAN JAARSVELD HENDRIK JOHANNES VAN JAARSVELD N.O EMMERENTIA FREDERIKA
More 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 informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA. Triumph International Aktiengesellschaft. Trimph Holdings (Pty) Ltd. Decision
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA In the matter between: CASE NO: CT025May2015 Triumph International Aktiengesellschaft Applicant and Trimph Holdings (Pty) Ltd Respondent Coram: Delport
More informationTHE COMPETITION APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SITTING IN CAPE TOWN)
THE COMPETITION APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SITTING IN CAPE TOWN) In the matter between 139/CAC/Feb16 GROUP FIVE LTD APPELLANT and THE COMPETITION COMMISSION FIRST RESPONDENT Coram: DAVIS JP, ROGERS
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: 4512/14. Date heard: 04 December 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: 4512/14 Date heard: 04 December 2014 Judgment Delivered: 11 December 2014 In the matter between: SIBUYA GAME RESERVE & LODGE
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DENGETENGE HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 39/13 [2013] ZACC 48 DENGETENGE HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD Applicant and SOUTHERN SPHERE MINING AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD RHODIUM REEFS LTD
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA. Safcor Freight (Pty) Ltd. Companies and Intellectual Property Commission.
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA In the matter between: CASE NO: CT001Mar2016 Safcor Freight (Pty) Ltd Applicant and BPL General Trading (Pty) Ltd Companies and Intellectual Property
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 9366/2017. In the matter between: and
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN In the matter between: PUMA SE CASE NO: 9366/2017 PLAINTIFF and HAM TRADING ENTERPRISE CC HABTAMU KUME TEGEGN THE MINISTER OF POLICE
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA CASE NUMBER: 68993/09 DATE: 23 FEBRUARY 2010 In the matter between: COLIN JOSEPH DE JAGER First Applicant SOUTH ROCK TRADING 20 CC Second Applicant And THE MINISTER
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] The applicants herein had earlier approached this Court for an order, inter
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH NOT REPORTABLE In the matter between: ANTHONY LAURISTON BIGGS RIDGE FARM CC Case no: 3323/2013 Date heard: 6.3.2014 Date
More information(1 March 2015 to date) LABOUR RELATIONS ACT 66 OF (Gazette No , Notice No. 1877, dated 13 December 1995) Commencement:
(1 March 2015 to date) [This is the current version and applies as from 1 March 2015, i.e. the date of commencement of the Legal Aid South Africa Act 39 of 2014 to date] LABOUR RELATIONS ACT 66 OF 1995
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA (PRETORIA) FOUNTAINHEAD PROPERTY TRUST CENTURION SUBURBS MALL (PTY) LTD DECISION
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA (PRETORIA) Case No.: CT 003FEB2015 In the matter between: FOUNTAINHEAD PROPERTY TRUST Applicant and CENTURION SUBURBS MALL (PTY) LTD Respondent DECISION INTRODUCTION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2009 BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAIMANT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2009 CLAIM NO: 317 OF 2009 BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAIMANT OF BELIZE APPLICANT AND 1.BELIZE TELEMEDIA LTD 2.BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. 1 ST DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable/Not Reportable Case no: J 2591/17 In the matter between: FAIS OMBUD Applicant and MPHO RAMETSI First Respondent COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Of interest to other Judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, In the matter between: HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case no: J1746/18 JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN BUS SERVICES SOC LTD Applicant and DEMOCRATIC MUNCIPAL
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: J3020/12 In the matter between: ZONDO N AND OTHERS Applicant And ST MARTINS SCHOOL Respondent Heard
More informationBuffalo City Metropolitan Municipality JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION Case nos: EL270/17; ECD970/17 Date heard: 22/6/17 Date delivered: 28/6/17 Not reportable In the matter between: David Barker Applicant
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ("THE TRIBUNAL") CASE NUMBER: CT017MAY2014 ADDIS IP LTD APPLICANT and ADDIS SHEWA TRADING (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT Coram: PJ Veldhuizen Order delivered
More informationPIK-IT UP JOHANNESBURG (PTY) LTD. Third Respondent JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application in terms of which the applicant seeks to have the
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: PIK-IT UP JOHANNESBURG (PTY) LTD Reportable Case number JR1834/09 Applicant and SALGBC K MAMBA N.O IMATU obo COOK First Respondent
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 179/16 MAMAHULE COMMUNAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION MAMAHULE COMMUNITY MAMAHULE TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY OCCUPIERS OF THE FARM KALKFONTEIN First
More informationIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CC Case No: CCT 228/14 TOYOTA SA MOTORS (PTY) LTD Applicant and CCMA COMMISSIONER: TERRENCE SERERO RETAIL AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION MAKOMA
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Date: 21/08/2008 Case No: 21803/2004 UNREPORTABLE In the case between: RIENA CHARLES Applicant And PREMIER OF THE PROVINCE OF MPULALANGA
More informationREASONS FOR ORDER GRANTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION: PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO:246/2018 In the matter between: LUSANDA SULANI APPLICANT AND MS T. MASHIYI AND ANO RESPONDENTS REASONS FOR ORDER GRANTED
More informationPOTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case No: 11711/2014 POTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff And NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE Defendant
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT PORT ELIZABERTH
REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT PORT ELIZABERTH In the matter between: CASE NO: P513/08 KOUGA MUNICIPALITY APPLICANT and SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BARGAINING COUNCIL COMMISSIONER
More informationGUMA AND THREE OTHERS JUDGEMENT. [1] This is an application for rescission of a judgement given by. August In terms of the judgement the
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. J1281/98 In the matter between: SIZABANTU ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION APPLICANT and GUMA AND THREE OTHERS RESPONDENTS JUDGEMENT SEADY A J [1]
More informationNSIKAYOMUZI GOODMAN GOQO DURBAN SOUTH THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT. 1] The applicant approached this court on the basis of urgency, ex-parte
1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN NOT REPORTABLE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case no. 6094/10 In the matter between: NSIKAYOMUZI GOODMAN GOQO PLAINTIFF and JOHANNES GEORGE KRUGER N.O. DALES BROTHERS
More information