IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG
|
|
- Amberlynn Tate
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: 277/12 In the matter between:- MONNENG ROYAL HOUSE Applicant and PREMIER OF THE NORTH WEST PROVINCE COMMISSION ON TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP DISPUTES AND CLAIMS MOILOA JUBILEE KETSHABILE First Respondent Second Respondent Third Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DATE OF HEARING : 15 MARCH 2012 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : 17 APRIL 2012 COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT : ADV COWLEY COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT : ADV CHWARO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1
2 HENDRICKS J [A] Introduction:- [1] On 15 th March 2012 (the court order erroneously refer to 2011) I dismissed the application with costs and ordered that if reasons are required, same must be applied for within ten (10) days from the date of the order. On 03 rd May 2012 the file was brought to my chambers and it contain a notice requesting for reasons for judgment, which was filed with the office of the Registrar of this Court on 22 nd March [2] Upon investigating, Mr Omphile in the office of the Registrar of this Court indicated that when he received the notice requesting reasons for judgment, he perused the file and found that there are indeed reasons for judgment in the file. He overlooked the fact that the said reasons refer to a different case with a different case number altogether, which was a case decided by my brother Landman J and not me. [3] Had the notice requesting reasons for judgment been brought to my attention on the same day that it was filed in the office of the Registrar (22 nd March 2012), - which should be the practice to be implemented in the Registrar s office - the required reasons for judgment would have been provided long ago. The delay is indeed regrettable and must in the future be avoided at all costs. Be that as it may, here follows the reasons for my judgment.
3 [B] Background:- [4] The Applicant approached this Court on a semi-urgent basis requesting the following relief as set out in the notice of motion:- 1.That the use of forms and service provided for in the Uniform Rules of Court be herewith dispensed with and that the matter be heard as a matter of urgency; 2. That the Second Respondent is directed to forthwith investigate and determine the pending dispute about the identity appointment of the Kgosi of the Bahurutshe Ba Ga Moiloa ( the tribe ) herein after referred to as the dispute ; 3. That during the determination of the dispute the Second Respondent shall have the powers to establish the identity of the members of the tribe whom are validly entitled to be members of the Monneng Royal House; 4. That pending the final determination of the dispute by the Second Respondent that the First Respondent appoint an independent administrator as acting Kgosi of the tribe; 5. That the duration of the appointment of the independent administrator, such independent administrator shall have the authorities and powers which would normally vest in the Kgosi of the tribe; 6. That the Third Respondent be removed from the position as acting Kgosi; 7. That the Second Respondent is directed to investigate and 3
4 determine the dispute within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of this order; 8. That in the event that the Second Respondent is unable to complete its duties so imposed then the Second Respondent shall be compelled to approach the above Honourable Court for an extension of the time within which to finally determine the dispute; 9. That in the event that Second Respondent is required to apply for the abovementioned extension of time, then that the Second Respondent is directed to give notice of such application to the Applicant, First Respondent and the administrator who is appointed in terms of this order; 10.That the Third Respondent be directed to pay the costs of this application, together with those Respondents who oppose this application; 11.Further and/or alternative relief. This application was only opposed by the Third Respondent, who is the acting Kgosi (chief). [5] The purpose of this application was to obtain urgent interim relief pending the determination of a dispute regarding the successor to the position of Kgosi of the Bahurutshe Ba Ga Ramotshere tribe ( the tribe ). [C] History:-
5 [6] The former paramount Chief of the tribe Kgosi Monnaamere Joseph Godfrey Moiloa ( the deceased Kgosi ) died on the 27 th June After the death of the deceased Kgosi, Seiso Godwin Moiloa ( Seiso ), was appointed as temporary Kgosi of the tribe. On the 31 st October 2007 a meeting of the tribal council of the tribe was held at Dinokana, at which meeting it was resolved that the entitled heir to the position of Kgosi is Israel Keobutsitse Moiloa ( Israel ). [7] An application was launched in which it was claimed that Israel was not entitled to be appointed as Kgosi of the tribe. On the 8 th November 2007 the Third Respondent succeeded to obtain a court order which effectively replaced Seiso with him and directed that the dispute about the appointment of the entitled Kgosi has to be resolved by the North West Provincial House of Traditional Leaders, alternatively, by the First Respondent, alternatively, by the Second Respondent. Seiso vacated the tribal offices and was consequently replaced by the Third Respondent. [8] After the court order was made, the North West House of Traditional Leaders directed a report to the First Respondent, dated 15 th November 2007, in which it was recommended that Israel should be appointed as the entitled Kgosi of the tribe. Notwithstanding the aforementioned report the dispute remained unresolved. In an attempt to resolve the dispute the First Respondent appointed Mr Justice Ralph Zulman to head a commission with a view of determining the dispute ( the Zulman commission ). The findings of the Zulman commission were 5
6 published in an unsigned and incomplete commission report. According to the available information the Zulman commission considered evidence and argument and came to the conclusion that there are two possible tribal members who may qualify for the position of Kgosi, namely Israel and one Tebogo Charles Moiloa ( Charles ). It is recommended by the Zulman commission that a meeting had to be convened by an unspecified list of members of the tribe who would then vote on which of the two candidates, mentioned above, should be the Kgosi of the tribe. [9] The findings and recommendations of the Zulman commission were clearly at odds with the customary law and probably accounted for the First Respondent to take the position that the dispute should be determined by another commission headed by Mr J M Mafereka, the Second Respondent. The Second Respondent is yet to determine the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Act is peremptory on the issue that when a dispute arises about the appointment of a Kgosi then the dispute must be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of the Act. [10] On the 18 th May 2010 a meeting was held by persons purporting to have the authority to convene the meeting as envisaged by the Zulman commission. These unauthorised persons then voted that Charles was the Kgosi. [11] On the 27 th June 2011 the office of the First Respondent directed a letter to the Third Respondent having inter alia the following important content:-
7 1. That the Honourable Premier has given instructions for us to communicate to the Chairperson of the Zulman commission of Enquiry, Judge Ralph Zulman, to demand that they provide us with a report that details their findings on all matters raised in the Commission s terms of reference, which we have already done. We are in constant communication with the Judge in that respect, seeing that the report was submitted was not signed and/or sanctioned by him as Chairperson. The Honourable Premier has therefore not accepted the recommendations of the Commission; 2. You are further informed that the matter has also been referred to the National Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims, chaired by Mr J M Mafereka, appointed in terms of the provisions of Section 26A of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, 2003 (Act No 41 of 2003 as amended); 3. With the benefit of information provided above we wish to advise you that your decision to install Kgosi, when matter pertaining to identification of the rightful heir to the Chieftainship are still to be finalised, is prematurely conceived and not in the best interest of all parties involved. As we indicated before the Premier issued a statement indicating that the Provincial Government has yet to take a final decision on the matter; 4. We therefore request you to desist from proceeding with the installation of Kgosi pending finalisation of all disputes in this regard. You will agree that it is critical that finalisation of this matter should yield the correct and 7
8 therefore sustainable resolution to the dispute in the best interest of Bahurutshe Ba Moiloa Traditional Community. It is upon the considerations above that your appointment as Kgosi is not recognised by the Provincial Government. We have therefore been requested to inform you, as we hereby do, that government will not participate in the proceedings, should you disregard this and proceed with the installation. That also means that the normal emoluments that are payable to Kgosi will not be provided to the incumbent Kgosi until this matter has been fully investigated and finalised. [12] Notwithstanding the fact that Charles was not entitled to be appointed as Kgosi of the tribe, the Third Respondent attempted to install Charles as Kgosi. In reaction the tribe did not recognise Charles as the Kgosi. After the failed attempt to install Charles as Kgosi the Third Respondent again assumed the position of temporary Kgosi. [D] Urgency:- [13] On the hearing of this application it was contended on behalf of the Third Respondent that this application is not at all urgent and should never have been placed on the semi-urgent roll to take precedence over all other matters where the parties have set them down in the normal way on the ordinary roll. This is mainly informed by the Applicant s own version in respect of the chronology of events since the appointment of the Zulman Commission of Enquiry until the final report of the said Commission was presented to the former Premier.
9 [14] The Third Respondent submitted that following the presentation of the Zulman Commission s report, there was litigation between the parties during or about June 2011 where the deponent to the founding affidavit and some of the persons who have deposed to confirmatory affidavits in this application brought an urgent application against the Third Respondent and Tebogo Charles Moiloa. They had ample opportunity of canvassing the points that are all of a sudden canvassed some eight months after the events. An attempt at using recent spate of community unrest not related to the dispute can only be described as a desperate measure to justify the placing of this matter on the urgent roll. [15] Uniform Rule 6 (12)(b) in instructive in this regard as it provides that a party who has placed a matter on the urgent roll must not only set forth explicitly the circumstances which he avers render the matter urgent but must also set forth the reasons why he claims that he could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course. This rule is mandatory and when an applicant has failed to show the reasons as to why he could not be granted substantial redress in due course, then such an application stands to be struck from the urgent roll and be placed on the ordinary roll. [16] The aforegoing was emphasised in the matter of Luna Meubels Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Markin and Another 1977 (4) SA 135 (W) at 137A-F where the court recognised the fact that there are varying degrees of urgency in certain instances and the learned judge went on to hold that:- 9
10 Practitioners should carefully analyse the facts of each case to determine, for the purposes of setting the case down for hearing, whether a greater or lesser degree of relaxation of the rules and of the ordinary practice of the court is required. The degree of relaxation should not be greater than the exigency of the case demands. It must be commensurate therewith. Mere lip service to the requirements of Rule 6(12)(b) will not do and an applicant must make out a case in the founding affidavit to justify the particular extent to the departure from the norm, which is involved in the time and day for which the matter be set down. [17] Where an applicant is dilatory in the pursuit of its claim, like in the present matter, such an applicant cannot be entitled to be heard as a matter of urgency and must accordingly follow the ordinary practice of setting the matter down. In the final analysis, this Court must weigh the prejudice which the Applicant would suffer if it was to be accorded a hearing in the ordinary course, the prejudice that other litigants would suffer if preference was to be given to the Applicant and the prejudice that the Respondents might suffer by the abridgment of the time periods. [18] It was submitted on behalf of the Third Respondent that this matter must be struck off the roll for lack of urgency with costs. In the exercise of my discretion, I decided not to strike the matter from the roll due to lack of urgency but to even entertain the merits of the application and to dismiss it with costs. It would have been a futile and costly exercise for the litigants if the matter is struck from the roll due to lack of urgency and later again entertained when
11 there are no merits in the application itself. To save costs and time, I listened to the submissions and granted the abovementioned order. The Lack of authority [19] It is trite law that a party who alleges to be acting on behalf of an entity like the Applicant must allege and prove that it has the necessary legal standing to bring the application. The onus to establish this issue rests upon that party throughout the proceedings. Both the North West Traditional Leadership and Governance Act, 2 of 2005 ( the North West Act ) and Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, 41 of 2003 ( the National Framework Act ) make provision for an institution known as the royal family, which is an entity that can sue and be sued on its own name and as such for any party to claim that he is instituting proceedings on behalf of the royal family, such party must have the necessary mandate and/or authority in the form of a resolution. [20] It was contended by the Third Respondent that the deponent to the founding affidavit is not a member of the Applicant and secondly, the persons who purported to have resolved to institute these proceedings on behalf of Monneng Royal House are not the rightful members of the Applicant. [21] By their own version, the Applicant, through the deponent to the founding affidavit and those who form common cause with them, seek an order, in paragraph 3 of the notice of motion, which 11
12 effectively supports the contention of the Third Respondent to the effect that they are not members of the Applicant. If, on their own version the aspect related to who are the rightful members of the Monneng Royal House is in dispute, they should have anticipated a dispute of fact and instituted the proceedings in their own names. The Non-joinder of interested parties [22] The Applicant failed to join Tebogo Charles Moiloa and the Zulman Commission in these proceedings. They are respectively parties with substantial legal interest in the orders sought in this matter. The deponent to the founding papers and those who form common cause with him are quite aware that the outcome of the Zulman Commission were communicated by the former Premier to all interested parties and that Tebogo Charles Moiloa was recommended for recognition as Kgosi of the tribe. To seek an order that effectively nullifies the findings and report of the Zulman Commission and in doing so fail to cite the interested parties emanating therefrom, renders this application defective. [23] Similarly, and on their own version, the deponent to the founding affidavit and those who support him recognise this fact in relation to Israel Moiloa by stating the following:- Due to the fact that Israel has a direct interest in the resolution of the dispute, the Applicant was advised that the founding affidavit should rather be made by by (sic) a more neutral person such as me. [24] It is common cause that the dispute as to who should be the Kgosi is about two persons, being Israel and Charles. The Applicant
13 cannot state on the one hand, that the one party to the dispute has a direct interest and on another hand deny that the other party have a direct interest. Is this matter ripe for hearing? [25] It was submitted by the Third Respondent, that this application is rather prematurely brought in the sense that the report and findings of the Zulman Commission are still live issues that have not been brought to a logical conclusion by the First Respondent. A closer look at the letter attached to the replying affidavit as annexure OA3 reveals a massive contradiction and indecisiveness from the First Respondent in dealing with this matter. [26] This indecisiveness and the sending of confusing signals is the cause for concern and the First Respondent s decision to oppose this application and thereafter making an about-turn to file a notice to abide is indicative of her indecisiveness. [27] It is therefore incumbent upon the First Respondent to deal with the findings of the Zulman Commission in a decisive manner that will bring closure and finality for all interested parties. Having been appointed in accordance with the law, the Zulman Commission report cannot just be swiped under the carpet and expect all interested parties to accept such a decision which, as annexure OA3 indicates, is yet to be finally decided upon. [28] If it happened that the First Respondent has decided not to accept 13
14 the Zulman Commission s report, then she was supposed to provide reasons for such decision which reasons would have enabled all interested parties to consider and take appropriate legal action in the event the reasons so given are reviewable in terms of the recognised statutory grounds and those under the common law. [29] Similarly, the following dictum from the Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs 2000 (1) SA 997 (C) at 1030H-J case is instructive in this regard on whether the matter can be adjudicated upon prior to the decision by the Premier. In that matter, the court held as follows:-..as pointed out by applicants' counsel, under administrative law an application to a Court would indeed be premature if the relevant public authority had not yet completed its decisionmaking processes (see Lawrence Baxter Administrative Law (1984) at ). In constitutional matters, on the other hand, the doctrine of ripeness 'prevents a party from approaching a court prematurely at a time when s/he has not yet been subjected to prejudice, or the real threat of prejudice, as a result of the legislation or conduct alleged to be unconstitutional'. Until such time that the First Respondent has unequivocally decided upon the matter, this application remains not ripe for hearing. The Merits of the application Insofar as it concerns the appointment of the Second Respondent
15 (paragraphs 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the Notice of Motion) [30] The First Respondent exercised public powers derived from the Constitution and the provincial statute to appoint a commission of enquiry to deal with the dispute around the chieftainship of the Bahurutshe Ba Ga Moiloa tribe. The Proclamation in that regard was duly published in the Extraordinary Provincial Gazette No of the 22 July [31] Pursuant to the proclamation, the commission commenced with its work and presented interim and final reports to the First Respondent. It is common cause that such a report and its findings were communicated to all interested parties. The letter dated 27 th June 2011 and attached as annexure OA3 to the replying affidavit which was directed to the Third Respondent, was a reaction to the intended inauguration of Charles Tebogo Moiloa as the Kgosi of the tribe and following the findings of the Zulman Commission. [32] As alluded to earlier on, a proper reading of the entire letter clearly shows that the First Respondent is non-committal and indecisive in finalising the matter and for all intents and purposes, she has as yet not taken a final decision on the matter. Having received the Zulman Commission s report and having failed to provide reasons for its rejection and/or acceptance in an unequivocal manner since then to date, it remains the sole prerogative of the First Respondent to decide once and for all to bring finality and closure to this matter. 15
16 [33] As alluded to above, the First Respondent must furnish reasons for whatever decision she takes on the matter to enable all interested parties to weigh their legal options accordingly, if needs be. Section 38 (4)(a) of the North West Act is also instructive on the manner in which the First Respondent must deal with the findings and recommendations of a commission of enquiry. In the premises and on the basis of the ripeness, the Applicant cannot succeed at this stage as the dispute is yet to be finalised by the First Respondent. The relief sought in the aforementioned prayer could not be granted. Insofar as it concerns the appointment of an administrator (paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Notice of Motion) [34] The appointment of an administrator for a particular traditional community is a matter that is regulated in accordance with the provisions of the North West Act. Section 10 (3)(a) and (b) of the North West Act are apposite in this regard and provide as follows:- (3)(a) On the recommendation of the Royal family the Premier may, if satisfied that a traditional council is unable to perform the functions attached to it in terms of the Act in an efficient and effective manner or in a manner which is conducive to good governance and administration, appoint any person to assist the traditional council concerned to perform the functions assigned to such traditional council. (b) An officer appointed in terms of paragraph (a) shall be competent to exercise and perform any power, authority or function conferred or imposed by law upon any such traditional
17 council and shall be deemed to have been exercised or performed by such traditional council. [35] The above quoted legislation is clear in the sense that firstly, the royal family of the tribe should make a recommendation to the Premier and if the latter approves such a recommendation, she will secondly, appoint such an administrator to perform and exercise the functions of a traditional council and not those functions that are performed or exercised by Kgosi. The orders prayed for cannot be granted in that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that as a lawfully constituted royal family, it took a resolution to the Premier as the law prescribes and that the Premier refused such request irrationally or for any other reasons. [36] The appointment of an administrator is a purview bestowed on the First Respondent by legislation and the Courts must surely defer from assuming roles that are executive and/or administrative in nature in the absence of any congruent reasons to do so. In dealing with the deference expected of courts, the following dictum from the Constitutional court s decision in Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others 2004 (4) SA 490 at paragraph 48 is quite apposite:- In treating the decisions of administrative agencies with the appropriate respect, a Court is recognising the proper role of the Executive within the Constitution. In doing so a Court should be careful not to attribute to itself superior wisdom in relation to matters entrusted to other branches of government. A Court should thus give due weight to findings of fact and policy decisions made by those with special expertise and experience 17
18 in the field. The extent to which a Court should give weight to these considerations will depend upon the character of the decision itself, as well as on the identity of the decisionmaker. [37] The North West Act further states and differentiates between the role and functions of the Kgosi and the function of a traditional council respectively. These sections clearly illustrates what is the ceremonial duties of a Kgosi vis-a-vis the administrative duties entrusted upon a traditional council. It is for the aforementioned reasons that the relief sought in the abovementioned prayers could not be granted. Removal of the Third Respondent as acting Kgosi (paragraph 6 of the notice of motion) [38] Similarly, the removal of Kgosi or acting Kgosi is a matter that is regulated by statute. Section 14 of the North West Act is instructive of the grounds upon which a Kgosi (or acting Kgosi) may be removed as well as the steps that must be taken for such a removal. These are all matters that are vested within the authority of the First Respondent. The Applicant is at liberty to make full recommendations to the First Respondent in accordance with section 14 (2) of the North West Act and the latter to do what the law enjoys her to do. [39] In my view, this is a matter where this Court must surely defer from assuming roles that are executive and/or administrative in nature in the absence of any congruent reasons to do so, especially since
19 the present application is not a review. [E] Conclusion:- [40] It is for the aforementioned reasons that I dismissed the application with costs, as there is no plausible reason why costs should not follow the event and be awarded in favour of the successful party. R D HENDRICKS JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT ATTORNEYS FOR THE APPLICANT:- D C KRUGER ATTORNEY 19
MEMORANDUM TO PRACTITIONERS RE: PROCEDURE IN THE PRETORIA URGENT MOTION COURT
MEMORANDUM TO PRACTITIONERS RE: PROCEDURE IN THE PRETORIA URGENT MOTION COURT [1] Urgent applications must be brought in accordance with Rule 6 and the guidelines set out in cases such as Republikeinse
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG
Page 1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG Case No. J 1888/00 MIMMO S FRANCHISING CC MIMMO S ROSEBANK CC 1 st Applicant 2 nd Applicant 3 rd Applicant MIMMO S WESTGATE CC 4 th Applicant
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT (MAFIKENG)
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT (MAFIKENG) CASE NO: 320/11 In the matter between: BAKGATLA BASES FIKILE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION O.B.O DESCENDANTS OF MOLEFE MOLEMI AND 51 OTHERS 1 ST APPLICANT SEATI
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 HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE ST ATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN HEARD ON: 2 FEBRUARY 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE ST ATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Case No.: 51092016 FIDELITY
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no J 633/16 In the matter between GEORGE MAKUKAU Applicant And RAMOTSHERE MOILOA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent THOMPSON PHAKALANE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: 07/19105 In the matter between: LUSHAKA INVESTMENT (PTY) LTD LUSHAKA CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD LASON TRADING 12 (PTY) LTD First Applicant Second Applicant
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG MARTHINUS JOHANNES LAUFS DATE OF HEARING : 28 OCTOBER 2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01 DECEMBER 2016
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG In the matter between: CASE NO:
More informationSIBUSISO M SIGUDO THE MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION THE CHIEF DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION (NATIONAL EXAMINATION AND ASSESSMENT)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2016/19144 (1) (2) OF I ISITFIREST TO OTHER4IJ (3) REVISED: - 3- Ncvemer 2017 In the matter between: SIBUSISO M SIGUDO Applicant
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 informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA M AND K ACCOUNTING AND TAX CONSULTANTS
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number: 2197/2011 In the matter between:- M AND K ACCOUNTING AND TAX CONSULTANTS Applicant and CENTLEC (PTY) LTD Respondent CORAM: SNELLENBURG,
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable CASE NO: P 322/15 In the matter between ANDILE FANI Applicant and First Respondent EXECUTIVE MAYOR,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRCA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRCA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE 400/07 In the matter between: POTCH ACTION GROUP First Applicant AFRIFORUM Second Applicant and THE MEC FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT First
More informationIN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT In the matter between:- DR BHADALA T. MAMBA CASE NO. 418/2015 APPLICANT AND CENTRAL BANK OF SWAZILAND SIKHUMBUZO SIMELANE 1 ST RESPONDENT 2 ND RESPONDENT
More information(EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 812/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 812/2012 In the matter between: CLIMAX CONCRETE PRODUCTS CC t/a CLIMAX CONCRETE PRODUCTS CC Registration Number CK 1985/014313/23
More informationLIMPOPO TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP AND INSTITUTIONS ACT 6 OF (Signed by the Premier) [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 APRIL 2006]
LIMPOPO TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP AND INSTITUTIONS ACT 6 OF 2005 (Signed by the Premier) [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 APRIL 2006] As amended by Act 4 of 2011 ACT To provide for the recognition of traditional
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA DELETE WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE [1] REPORTABLE: YES / NO [2] OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO [3] REVISED DATE SIGNATURE
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) CASE NO: 16572/2018 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO IN THE MATIER BETWEEN : SOLIDARITY APPLICANT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 30037/2015 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
More informationIN THE CONSITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SITHEMBILE VALENCIA MKHIZE N.O.
IN THE CONSITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between : CC CASE NO. : CCT 285/2017 SCA CASE NO : 568/2017 KwaZulu-Natal High Court Pietermaritzburg Case No : 2367/2010 SITHEMBILE VALENCIA MKHIZE
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- Case No. : 2631/2013 JACQUES VLOK Applicant versus SILVER CREST TRADING 154 (PTY) LTD MERCANTILE BANK LTD ENGEN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
CIV/APN/139/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter between:- REVEREND RAMAKHUTSOANE LIETA APPLICANT vs BISHOP JOSEPH TSUBELLA REVEREND JOSEPH LEODI 1 ST RESPONDENT 2 ND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Delivered
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 informationMOLEFI THOABALA INCORPORATED
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- Case No.: 2289/2013 MOLEFI THOABALA INCORPORATED Applicant and MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN First Respondent MUNICIPALITY THE
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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Reportable CASE NO: J20/2010 In the matter between: MOHLOPI PHILLEMON MAPULANE Applicant and MADIBENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent ADV VAN
More information(1 December to date) CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996
(1 December 2003 - to date) CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996 (Gazette No. 17678, Notice No. 2083 dated 18 December 1996. Commencement date: 4 February 1997 unless otherwise indicated)
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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: Case no: J1812/2016 GOITSEMANG HUMA Applicant and COUNCIL FOR SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH First Respondent MINISTER
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.: 264/13 In the matter between:
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.: 264/13 In the matter between: KGOSI J JEM RAMOKOKA BAPHALANE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL First Applicant Second Applicant and BOSMAN NOAH RAMOKOKA COMMISSION ON
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION. PRETORIA) MEGAN B OOSTHUIZEN...APPLICANT RHODERICK CHARLES CHRISTIE...INTERESTED PARTY/ JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT LUZALUZILE FARMERS ASSOCIATION LTD THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAVING BANK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT In the matter between: Civil Case 820/15 LUZALUZILE FARMERS ASSOCIATION LTD Applicant And THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 st Respondent 2 nd Respondent
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 informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) CASH CRUSADERS FRANCHISING (PTY) LTD
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 1052/2013 2970/2013 CASH CRUSADERS FRANCHISING (PTY) LTD Applicant v LUVHOMBA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO.: 3022/02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO.: 3022/02 REPORTABLE In the matter ex parte application of : LEON OWEN SANDERS ID NUMBER : 731215 5158 084 First Applicant
More informationMAINTENANCE AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MAINTENANCE AMENDMENT BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 7); explanatory summary of Bill published in Government Gazette No. 38138 of 29 October 2014)
More informationNORTH WEST TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE ACT No. 2 OF 2005
NORTH WEST TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE ACT No. 2 OF 2005 [DATE OF ASSENTMENT ] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT ] (English text singed by the Premier) ACT To provide for the recognition of traditional communities,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA In the application between: ADRIANUS CORNELIUS MARIAN HUIJSKENS CASE NO: 9745/2017 1st Applicant MARTINA JACQUELINE WINTER 2nd Applicant and
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 informationIN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO
IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO Held at Maseru In the matter between: TSELISO MOKEMANE LC/APN/30B/2013 1 ST APPLICANT And TLHAKO MOKHORO HER WORSHIP MRS. MOTEBELE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAND
More informationBANDILE KASHE, in his capacity as the Executor for the Estate Late W.M. M., Reference No: 2114/2007 JUDGMENT
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EAST LONDON
More 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 informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$15.20 WINDHOEK - 7 November 2014 No. 5608 CONTENTS Page GOVERNMENT NOTICES No. 227 Amendment of Rules of High Court of Namibia: High Court Act, 1990... 1
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. 6404/11 In the matter between:
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. 6404/11 In the matter between: SOLOMON MNGOMEZULU 1 ST APPLICANT TINDLA ORELIUS MNGOMEZULU 2 ND APPLICANT JABULANI SEVENDAYS
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 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 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 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 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 informationCHAPTER 41:01 BOGOSI ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Preliminary
SECTION CHAPTER 41:01 BOGOSI ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Preliminary 1. Short title 2. Interpretation 3. Recognition of tribes PART II Recognition of tribes PART III Recognition and Removal of Dikgosi
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAFIKENG JASPER JOHANNES MALAN
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAFIKENG CASE NO:
More informationDEVELOPMENT FACILITATION ACT NO 67 OF 1995
EnviroLeg cc DEVELOPMENT FACILITATION Act p 1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATION ACT NO 67 OF 1995 Assented to: 28 September 1995 Date of commencement: 22 December 1995 ACT To introduce extraordinary measures to
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: J 1607/17 NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS Applicant and PETRA DIAMONDS t/a CULLINAN DIAMOND MINE (PTY) LTD Respondent Heard: 2 August
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ERIC THOBILE MDYESHA APPLICANT
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT PARTIES: ERIC THOBILE MDYESHA APPLICANT And THE MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY FIRST RESPONDENT THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Plaintiff. Defendant
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: J 2767/16 NKOSINATHI KHENA Applicant and PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA Respondent Heard: 23 November 2016 Delivered:
More informationCAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Vivier Adcj, Howie JA and Brand AJA
CAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Citation Case No 495/99 Court Judge 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Supreme Court of Appeal Heard August 28, 2001 Vivier
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Reportable: YES / NO Circulate to Judges: YES / NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG In the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN SOLAR MOUNTING SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case No.: 3717/2014 SOLAR MOUNTING SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD Applicant and ENGALA AFRICA (PTY) LTD SCHLETTER SOUTH AFRICA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff. ANDRé ALROY FILLIS First Defendant. MARILYN ELSA FILLIS Second Defendant JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NOT REPORTABLE EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH Case No.: 1796/10 Date Heard: 3 August 2010 Date Delivered:17 August 2010 In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J 603/15 TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA Applicant And ALGOA BUS COMPANY (PTY)
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 12/07 [2007] ZACC 24 M M VAN WYK Applicant versus UNITAS HOSPITAL DR G E NAUDÉ First Respondent Second Respondent and OPEN DEMOCRATIC ADVICE CENTRE Amicus
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009
COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Arrangement of Rules COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Arrangement of Rules Rule PART I - PRELIMINARY 7 1 Citation and commencement... 7 2 Interpretation....
More informationREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT PDS HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR THE DISTRICT OF WINDHOEK
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT Case no: HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2017/00163 In the matter between: PDS HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD APPLICANT and MINISTER OF LAND REFORM DANIEL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) CASE NO: In the matter between: MINISTER OF POLICE.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO: MINISTER OF POLICE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE THE PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONER
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SITTING IN DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO D71/05 DATE HEARD 2005/02/11 DATE OF JUDGMENT 2005/02/21
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SITTING IN DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO D71/05 DATE HEARD 2005/02/11 DATE OF JUDGMENT 2005/02/21 In the matter between H W JONKER APPLICANT and OKHAHLAMBA MUNICIPALITY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. L C FOURIE t/a LC FOURIE BOERDERY
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case No. : 174/2011 L C FOURIE t/a LC FOURIE BOERDERY Plaintiff and JOHANNES CHRISTIAAN KOTZé N.O. GRAHAM CHRISTIAAN
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD
1 FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ECJ NO: 021/2005 TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and FRAMESBY HIGH SCHOOL THE MEMBER FOR THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION, EASTERN CAPE
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG LANGA REGINALD THIBINI. ANTHONETTE RINKY NGWENYA AND OTHERS 2 nd to Further Respondents
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Reportable/Not Reportable Case no: J1113/17 LANGA REGINALD THIBINI Applicant and MERAFONG CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO: 18783/2011 MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent and BROADWAY DVD CITY
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 informationCASE NO. 89/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: 1 ST APPLICANT
CASE NO. 89/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: SHERA INVESTMENTS CC t/apie CITY SEHER BANO PEER 1 ST APPLICANT 2 ND APPLICANT and THE PUBLIC
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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J1982/2013 In the matter between: NUMSA obo MEMBERS Applicant And MURRAY AND ROBERTS PROJECTS First
More information3. The respondent s decision in terms whereof the first applicant was. review that is to be filed by the applicants within 30 (thirty) days from
2 3. The respondent s decision in terms whereof the first applicant was administratively discharged on 30 November 2009, is set aside and suspended, pending the institution and finalisation of an application
More informationIN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA
IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA (Coram: Moijo M. ole Keiwua P, Joseph Mulenga VP, Augustino S. L. Ramadhani J, Kasanga Mulwa J, Joseph S. Warioba J) REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2006 PROF. PETER ANYANG
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 11/01 IN RE: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MPUMALANGA PETITIONS BILL, 2000 Heard on : 16 August 2001 Decided on : 5 October 2001 JUDGMENT LANGA DP: Introduction
More informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA. N$17.60 WINDHOEK 9 May 2014 No. 5461
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$17.60 WINDHOEK 9 May 2014 No. 5461 CONTENTS Page GOVERNMENT NOTICE No. 67 High Court Practice Directions: Rules of High Court of Namibia, 2014... 1 Government
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 SOUTH AFRICA ... \ l ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
; REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA... \ l ' ot,../o s/2018 /v I \ ', IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case Number: 12194/2017 (1) (2) (3) REPORT ABLE: "81 NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER
More informationLAND (GROUP REPRESENTATIVES) ACT
LAWS OF KENYA LAND (GROUP REPRESENTATIVES) ACT CHAPTER 287 Revised Edition 2012 [1970] Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org CAP.
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2494/16 In the matter between: NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS Applicant and GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 38/04 RADIO PRETORIA Applicant versus THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
More 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 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 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 SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CASE NUMBER: 4/95 ENSIGN-BICKFORD (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LIMITED BULK MINING EXPLOSIVES (PTY) LIMITED DANTEX EXPLOSIVES (PTY) LIMITED 1st
More informationknown as plot number 13 Glynham, Masvingo ( the property ). It formed part of the estate
1 DISTRIBUTABLE (29) ALFRED MUCHINI v (1) ELIZABETH MARY ADAMS (2) SHEPHERD MAKONYERE N.O (3) ESTATE LATE ALVIN ROY ADAMS (4) REGISTRAR OF DEEDS (5) MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZIYAMBI
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CAP 67 AND
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CAP 67 AND THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR A RECEIVING ORDER BY MARIA K MUTESI (DEBTOR)
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GHANA ACCRA-AD 2016
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GHANA ACCRA-AD 2016 BETWEEN Suit No: 1. ABU RAMADAN H/NO. 27 4 TH ABEKA KWAME STREET ABEKA-LAPAZ, ACCRA 2. EVANS NIMAKO H/NO. AP174 APLAKU-ISRAEL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY Case No: 580/11 Date of Hearing: 27.05.2011 Date Delivered: 17.06.2011 In the matter between: BABEREKI CONSULTING ENGINEERS (PTY) LIMITED
More informationCase no:24661/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED 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 (NORTH GAUTENG
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 informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) DENNIS DONOVAN -AND- IRENE DONOVAN
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS Claim No. BVIHCV2009/0058 BETWEEN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) DENNIS DONOVAN -AND- IRENE DONOVAN Appearances: Ms. Sheryl Rosan and Mr.
More informationHIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 28 August, 2 & 8, 23 September Urgent Application
1 RAMWIDE INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus RONDEBUILD ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED and MESSENGER OF COURT MATEBELELAND NORTH PROVINCE and WILLIAM MAKUSHU HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 28 August,
More information