ISIMANGALISO WETLAND PARK AUTHORITY THE KWAZULU-NATAL NATURE CONSERVATION SECOND APPLICANT
|
|
- Charles Pitts
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO 3188/2010 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN; ISIMANGALISO WETLAND PARK AUTHORITY FIRST APPLICANT THE KWAZULU-NATAL NATURE CONSERVATION BOARD SECOND APPLICANT THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS THIRD APPLICANT and MADOLWANE MTHEMBU SIMON MBALANE TEMBE FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT NICHOLSON J The parties 1. The first applicant is the isimangaliso Wetland Park Authority, previously known as the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park Authority, the
2 2 name change was effected by Government Notice 438 of 11 May 2007, an authority pursuant to section 9 of the World Heritage Convention Act, 1999 ( the World Heritage Act ), which has authority over the isimangaliso Wetland Park. ( The park ). 2. The second applicant is the Kwazulu-Natal Nature Conservation Board, a board established in terms of section 4 of the KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Management Act, 1997 ( the KZN Nature Conservation Act ), a juristic person. 3. The third applicant is the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs of the Republic of South Africa. 4. The two respondents are adult male businessmen who reside in the KwaTembe Traditional Council area of Kosi Bay. 5. The applicants were represented by Mr Marais SC. The respondents have had a succession of legal representatives and at the final hearing of this matter were represented by Mr Choudree SC and Mr Manikam. Background of this application 6. The park is a World Heritage Site, as contemplated in section 1 of the World Heritage Act. In terms of section 13(2) the first applicant is
3 3 obliged inter alia to take effective and active measures for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage of the park. In terms of legislation the first applicant is the management authority and protected area manager of the park and the second applicant has been appointed conservation park manager in terms of a management agreement. 7. In terms of a plethora of statutes and regulations entrance, residence, development, construction and farming is prohibited without written permission. 8. The damage or removal inter alia of plants, vegetation and the degradation of the environment is also prohibited in numerous sections of the said legislation and regulations. 9. Over time the respondents and other illegal developers have cleared plants and vegetation and constructed tourist resorts and holiday accommodation in the heart of the park. 10. During argument there was some doubt as to whether the sites upon which the respondents effected constructions were within the park and as a result thereof various Government Gazettes, including Notice 4477 of 2000 and Annexure 1 thereto were handed in which it is established conclusively that the said sites fell within the relevant area.
4 4 11.Because these developments were illegal in terms of a number of statutes and provisions various applications were launched against the said developers in On 25 September 2009 the applicants sought and obtained an order against the respondents, in the form of a rule nisi, which was confirmed on 23 November In summary form the said order interdicted and restrained the respondents from continuing any construction work in the park, removing or destroying any plants or vegetation or conducting any commercial or tourism activities. 14.In addition the respondents were directed at their cost to commence by not later than 30 April 2010 and to complete by 1 June 2010 the removal of all structures and the rehabilitation of the site to its pristine state. 15. Furthermore, in the event of respondents failing to remove the structures and rehabilitate the area, the first and/or second applicants were entitled to carry out the removal and rehabilitation at the respondents cost. The order was to the effect that respondents be evicted from 1 June 2010 and they were directed to pay the costs.
5 5 16. The respondents were represented by counsel on 23 November 2009 when the rule was confirmed and it was served on both of them. A letter has been put up by their erstwhile attorneys confirming that they were present in court when the rule was confirmed and consequently were aware of the orders granted. 17. The applicants have alleged that the said orders have been flouted and have brought an application for a declaration that they are in contempt of court and committing them to prison for three months. 18.In addition the applicants seek an interim interdict that they be restrained from inter alia threatening or assaulting employees of the first and second applicants in the lawful execution of their duties, and costs on the attorney and own client scale. 19. When the matter first was brought before me I made an order with relation to the filing of certain supplementary affidavits and granted interim relief, relating to the allegations of threats and assaults. 20.The respondents have filed supplementary affidavits and the applicants have replied to these. Requirements for a contempt application
6 6 21. The applicants must prove the requisites for a contempt application; firstly, the court order, secondly, service of the order, and finally; noncompliance and willfulness in the form of mala fides, beyond reasonable doubt. See Fakie NO v CCll Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 SCA at 344 H-J. 22. I will deal with these requirements seriatim. There was clearly an order of court which was clear and unambiguous in its terms. 23.There was clearly service of the order and the returns of the deputy sheriff are prima facie proof thereof. The returns indicate that the orders were explained to the respondents by the sheriff. 24.There is some suggestion in the heads of argument though not mentioned in the affidavits that the respondents are not familiar with English but this must clearly be rejected. They have signed affidavits in English and annexed no affidavits by interpreters or translators of the said affidavits. 25. I have referred to the letter by their attorney, which is proof they were in court at the time and their attorney and advocate would have explained the order to them. There is a long history of the orders being sought by
7 7 the applicants and it is inconceivable that the respondents did not understand the orders. There is no merit in this argument. Has there been willful and mala fide non-compliance? 26.The next question relates to whether there has been willful, mala fide non-compliance with the court order. 27.The applicants allege that a conservation manager Leonard Zulu conducted a routine inspection on 26 February 2010, and observed a new type of building being constructed in three sections at the said site. 28.When Zulu spoke to the person in charge of construction, he was told that he was acting on the instructions of second respondent in carrying on the said construction. 29. Peter Hartley, the senior conservation compliance manager, visited the site on 3 March 2010, and concluded from his observations that the work must have commenced during the last week of February It had not been present when he last visited the site in December He actually saw labourers in the process of construction.
8 8 30.A series of photographs are put up showing the building and it is clear that a wall has been partially erected. It is transparent that the cement in certain parts is recent as it is darker in shade than the dried cement. I agree with Mr Marais that one can virtually smell the odour of drying cement. 31. The respondents were required to address the point of substance directly and not evasively. They submit they had permission to do so but deny that the structure was erected after the court order. The respondents do not explain what the labourers were doing on the site nor do they provide any explanation for the observations of the deponents to the applicants affidavits. I agree with Mr Marais that these are fictitious issues of fact which have been raised to frustrate the applicants recourse by way of application. See Nampesca (SA) Products (Pty) Ltd v Zaderer and others 1999 (1) SA 886 CPD at 893 A-C. 32.Prima facie such building or the continuation of such building is a willful and mala fide breach of the court order. The facts speak for themselves and there is little room for mistake as the continuation of the construction could not have been inadvertent or negligent. 33. If there is any doubt on this question a perusal of the history of the matter puts that to rest. It is clear that there have been warnings over
9 9 the past thirteen or more years. These include aborted prosecutions where it was assumed that respondents had no mens rea and letters from second applicant and their attorneys. These threaten court action if the construction work is undertaken or continued. 34. There are reports of a very hostile attitude on the part of respondents when park rangers visited the sites in question. John Tinley has filed an affidavit saying that from the beginning i.e there has been animosity and after a letter of warning a meeting was held at which he and Mr Mfeka were threatened with death. 35.A report annexed from the Sunday Argus of 13 August 2006 quotes second respondent saying The (authorities) are saying they will throw us in jail for trespassing and demolish the camp. We say Just go to hell Bring the bull dozer. I ll shoot the driver They ll have to enter over my dead body drive over me before they demolish this camp. 36. On 2 March 2007 the respondents warned a ranger Mathenjwa that they would not desist from their activities and would resort to killing rangers even if it meant their own death.
10 10 37.They insisted, in a letter dated 20 May 2009, that they would continue developing their land even if they were arrested. This was in response to a compliance letter sent by third applicant. 38. On 15 February 2010 the applicants entered the area to demolish and rehabilitate other illegal developments, pursuant to legal orders having been granted. The second respondent parked his vehicle on a narrow bridge giving access to the area and refused to move for six hours until force had to be used. In this endeavour it is clear he was making common cause with other malefactors and is strongly indicative of his own feelings in this regard. 39. Apart from what I have enumerated there are a number of other factors and considerations which are also consistent with a single-minded and determined resolve to carry on with their business ventures whatever the consequences. It would be superfluity to deal with them as well. 40.Given that there has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt that there has been non-compliance the question remains whether their actions and attitudes are capable of any other reasonable inference than the one which suggests itself that they are deliberately, willfully and mala fide breaching the court order I have mentioned. 41.Is there a competing inference to be drawn? Such an inference would have to place an innocent gloss on a series of serious confrontations
11 11 with legal authority. The evasive denial of further building, coupled with their mistaken sense of entitlement and aggression is not capable of any other construction. 42.I can only conclude that the applicant have shown beyond reasonable doubt that the non-compliance with the court order was willful and mala fide. 43.The respondents have raised a plethora of points relating to locus standi, the geographic position of the site, lis pendens and res judicata to mention but a few. 44. Although there have been indications that an appeal would be launched against the confirmation of the rule nothing has apparently transpired in that regard. The order was not contested, in the sense that no affidavits were filed, so it is difficult to imagine on what basis such an appeal could be successful. 45.There is also a suggestion that an application will be made to lead further evidence to lay the foundation for the points raised at this late stage. That has not been done and cannot influence the decision that court has to make in regard to this application for contempt.
12 12 46.Even if it was launched in the future it would have to entail an explanation why the points have not been raised before. This might be difficult given the lengthy history of the matter. 47.Despite the fact that the points raised should have been raised when the declarator was first sought they do not have merit and can be disposed of fairly briefly. The permission to occupy 48. The applicants allege that prior to first applicant s establishment the right to occupy the park could only be validly acquired by a written permission to occupy (PTO) issued by the KwaZulu Government or by a concession agreement concluded with first and/or second applicant. 49.The respondents claimed such permission in the form of a PTO but they could not produce any proof there of or any concession agreement. 50. In the respondents opposing affidavit to the contempt application they maintain they had authority and put up an application for a trading site dated 26 March Apart from the fact that this is only an application and there is no proof that it was successful, it does not adequately identify the site where it is to be conducted. Although the magistrate recommends its grant there is still no proof that it ever was.
13 13 51.In addition the approval and recommendation of the Tembe Tribal Authority dated 16 April 1997 does not carry the day. 52. There is an affidavit by Bhekani Shabalala, the General Manager of Land Use Management at the Department of Local Government and Traditional Affairs to the effect that he has searched the records and found no such PTO. 53.Eliakim Ndlovu is a conservation manager employed by Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, who knows the respondents. He confirms that no such PTO was ever granted to respondents. 54. In any event given the situation of the site in a coastal forest reserve, State forest and partially in Admiralty Reserve and part of a nature reserve meant that a PTO could not be granted. Joinder of Chief Isaac Tembe 55.The respondents have taken a further point in limine that Chief Isaac Tembe ought to have been joined on the basis that he had knowledge of a PTO with regard to the commercial activities of the respondents. 56.Once it is established that there is no such PTO the need for joinder of the chief falls away. The points relating to the non-joinder of the Tembe
14 14 Tribal Authority and Regional Lands Claim Commissioner similarly have no merit. Lis pendens and res judicata 57. Applicants have annexed to their affidavits previous proceedings under case no 532/04 and suggest that, as those proceedings have not been concluded, the plea of lis pendens is appropriate. 58.In the alternative they plead that if the proceedings have been completed then they raise the defence of res judicata. 59.I have a number of difficulties with this point. It was no raised on the papers. It is not clear what the result was in the said application. 60.The parties are different and the causes of action dissimilar. 61.Finally of course each act of construction or the continuation of construction or the degradation of the environment or removal or damage of plants provides a new cause of complaint which is actionable at the instance of the applicants. 62.This point also falls to be dismissed.
15 A picture is painted of the respondents as bona fide rural folk who are entitled to reside on the land as a result of lengthy cultural and indigenous considerations. This is not a correct depiction as they are businessmen who are seeking profit out of a commercial activity in an area where the law has reserved land for lovers of nature. 64.Given the circumstances I have outlined above I am constrained to grant a declaration that the respondents are in contempt of the said court order. 65.South Africa is a constitutional state and no one is above the law. The respondents have hitherto resisted the process of law and this must now be halted. What must be made abundantly clear is that court orders must be obeyed. If the deputy sheriff cannot enforce an order then the police are enjoined to assist and failing that the armed forces. If citizens are at liberty to obey whatever orders they choose the only result will be anarchy. The nature of the penalty 66. Mr Marais initially sought a penalty of three months imprisonment. It seems to me that the respondents commercial activities were conducted in pursuit of gain and it is more appropriate to impose a
16 16 substantial fine, with an alternative of imprisonment, suspended on appropriate conditions. The effect of such a sentence is that their future is in their own hands. If they carry out the court order they will not be incarcerated. Final interdict 67. Mr Marais submitted that a strong case was made out for a final interdict with regard to the allegations of threats of assault and worse consequences to the employees of second applicant. The principles of such are clear. The applicants have a clear right, there is harm not only apprehended but actually carried out and no other satisfactory remedy. 68.Given the circumstances set out above it seems to me that it is desirable that such an order be granted to safeguard the position of the employees of the first and second applicant when carrying out their duties. Costs
17 17 69.I am of the view that the conduct of the respondents is so reprehensible that it warrants costs on the attorney and own client scale. The order 70.In the premises I make the following order: a. It is declared that the respondents are in contempt of court for wrongfully and intentionally; i. Failing to comply with the orders granted on 25 September and 25 November 2009; ii. Acting in contravention of the aforesaid orders. b. The respondents are each sentenced to a fine of R or failing payment, imprisonment for six months, wholly suspended for five years on condition, in the area of the isimangaliso Wetland Park, in particular at Bhanga Nek, i. they cease
18 18 1. any construction work, 2. interfering with, removing or destroying any plants or vegetation, 3. conducting any commercial or tourism activities; ii. at their own cost commence by 1 August 2010 and complete by 1 October the removal of all structures and foreign material erected or introduced at the Bhanga Nek site; 2. the rehabilitation of the site to the condition it was before they cleared vegetation and commenced construction; 3. failing compliance with the above mentioned the applicants are authorized to remove the said structures and foreign material and rehabilitate the site to the condition in which it was and recover from the respondents the actual costs incurred; c. The respondents are interdicted and restrained from threatening, assaulting or in any way interfering with the lawful
19 19 execution of their duties by any employees of the first and second applicants; d. The respondents are ordered to pay the applicants costs occasioned by this application on the scale as between attorney and own client. Date of hearing : 7 May 2010 Date of judgment : 15 July 2010 Counsel for the Applicants : J Marais SC (instructed by Kevin Pretorius and Associates) Counsel for the Respondents : R G B Choudree SC with M Manikam (instructed by Dandala Attorneys)
IN 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 informationCASE NO: 6084/15. In the matter between: DENEL SOC LIMITED. Applicant. and
Republic of South Africa In the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town) In the matter between: DENEL SOC LIMITED CASE NO: 6084/15 Applicant and PERSONS WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE TO THE
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 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. 259/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. 259/2018 In the matter between: SANGO MAVUSO Applicant and MRS MDAYI/CHAIRPERSON PICARDY COMMUNAL FARM COMMITTEE RESIDENTS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KWAZULU NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KWAZULU NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. DR345/11 In the matter between: THE STATE and MONGEZI DUMA SPECIAL REVIEW JUDGMENT Delivered on 16/8/2011 NDLOVU J
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG In the matter between: Case no: 13701 /13 SKIN RENEWAL CC APPLICANT and BRIGIT FILMER SPA & SKIN (PTY) LTD BRIGIT FILMER HERCULES
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO 09/35493 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 26/02/2010 FHD van Oosten SIGNATURE In the matter between INSIMBI ALLOY
More informationTHE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 1225/12 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 1225/12 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: SASOL POLYMERS, a division of SASOL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Applicant and SOUTHERN AMBITION
More 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 HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH. CASE NO: 4305 / 2017 Date heard: 26 June 2018 Date delivered: 31 July 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4305 / 2017 Date heard: 26 June 2018 Date delivered: 31 July 2018 In the matter between JUNE KORKIE JUNE KORKIE N.O. JACK
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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT ARAMEX SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD FIRST RESPONDENT EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable CASE NO J2265/13 In the matter between: ARAMEX SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD APPLICANT and SATAWU INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS
More informationEASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION MTHATHA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION MTHATHA CASE NO 3642/2015 In the matter between: MINISTER OF POLICE, LIBODE STATION COMMISSIONER 1 st Applicant 2 nd Defendant And REFORMED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) LONDOLOZA FORESTRY CONSORTIUM (PTY) LTD PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED
UNREPORTABLE In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No: 28738/2006 Date heard: 25 & 26 /10/2007 Date of judgment: 12/05/2008 LONDOLOZA FORESTRY CONSORTIUM
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. Reportable Case No J1869/15 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No J1869/15 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SA Applicant and VANACHEM VANADIUM PRODUCTS (PTY) LTD Respondent
More informations(;)e)ff... =. YLt.s. '...
1 JUDGMENT (Digital Audio Recording Transcriptions)/aj IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 16494-2018 DATE: ( 1) REPORTABLE: 1il / NO (2) O F INTER EST TO OTHER JUDGES:
More informationIMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ACT 27 OF ] (English text signed by the President)
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ACT 27 OF 2002 [ASSENTED TO 12 JULY 2002] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 16 AUGUST 2002] ACT (English text signed by the President) Regulations
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 informationGAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA. (R E P llift& e ^ SOUTH AFRICA) CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY JUDGMENT
(VJOT ^ GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (R E P llift& e ^ SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO: 37742/2006 In the matter between* CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Applicant and BEUKES GETRUIDA JOHANNA BEUKES, ADOLF
More informationKENTZ OVERSEAS LTD APPLICANT. G A McGILLAN RESPONDENT JUDGMENT
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: 11384/2010 In the matter between: KENTZ OVERSEAS LTD APPLICANT and G A McGILLAN RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Date: 12 November 2011 PLOOS
More informationPollution (Control) Act 2013
Pollution (Control) Act 2013 REPUBLIC OF VANUATU POLLUTION (CONTROL) ACT NO. 10 OF 2013 Arrangement of Sections REPUBLIC OF VANUATU Assent: 14/10/2013 Commencement: 27/06/2014 POLLUTION (CONTROL) ACT NO.
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 LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN CASE NO: D818/00
NOT REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN CASE NO: D818/00 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT [1] In this matter the applicant filed an application in which
More informationSUTHERLAND J: This is a matter in which certain workers were retrenched by the
30 Sneller Verbatim/idem IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J1626/99 2000-12-13 In the matter between PHEELO AND OTHERS Applicant and LEEUDOORN GOLD MINE Respondent J U D G M E N
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 informationJUDGMENT. This is an exception by the plaintiff to the defendant s plea and counterclaim.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) NOT REPORTABLE Case No.: 6104/07 Date delivered: 16 May 2008 In the matter between: GAY BOOYSEN Plaintiff and GEOFFREY LYSTER WARREN SMITH Defendant
More informationIn the matter between: Case No: 1288/2012. TRANSNET LIMITED First Applicant. LE TAP CC Second Applicant. OCEANS 11 SEAFOODS TAKE OUT CC Respondent
NOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No: 1288/2012 TRANSNET LIMITED First Applicant LE TAP CC Second Applicant And OCEANS 11 SEAFOODS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO.: 13342/2015 JEEVAN S PROPERTY INVESTMENT (PTY) LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO.: 13342/2015 In the matter between: JEEVAN S PROPERTY INVESTMENT (PTY) LIMITED APPLICANT and REUNION CASH AND CARRY
More informationNATIONAL HOMEBUILDERS REGISTRATION Second Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 12 AUGUST 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case No. 13669/14 In the matter between: FRANCOIS JOHAN RUITERS Applicant And THE MINISTER OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS First Respondent NATIONAL
More information[1] This is an appeal, brought with leave granted by the court a quo
Republic of South Africa In the High Court of South Africa Western Cape High Court, Cape Town CASE NO: A228/2009 MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY SUPERINTENDENT NOEL GRAHAM ZEEMAN PAUL CHRISTIAAN LOUW N.O.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH. CASE NO: 1155/ 2017 Heard: 7 December 2017 Delivered: 13 March 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH In the matter between BUTTCAT BOAT BUILDERS (PTY) LTD NITOFKO (PTY) LTD t/a NAUTI-TECH CASE NO: 1155/ 2017 Heard: 7 December 2017
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 informationHot Dog Café (Pty) Limited Applicant. Daksesh Rowen s Sizzling Dogs CC First Respondent. Judgment
In the KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg Republic of South Africa Case No : 1783/2011 In the matter between : Hot Dog Café (Pty) Limited Applicant and Daksesh Rowen s Sizzling Dogs CC First Respondent
More informationICC Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration 1975
ICC Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration 1975 (in force as from 1st June 1975) Optional Conciliation Article 1 (ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION. CONCILIATION COMMITTEES) 1. Any business dispute
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 informationHOW TO DEAL WITH ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF LAND
ILLEGAL LAND OCCUPATION HOW TO DEAL WITH ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF LAND ILLEGAL LAND OCCUPATION The purpose of the documents is to make a clear distinction between: Unlawful access to property and squatting,
More informationINFORMATION DOCUMENT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF LAND
INFORMATION DOCUMENT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF LAND 1. INTRODUCTION For purposes of this document, a clear distinction must be made between unlawful access to property and squatting in
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 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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTHAFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. Staar Surgical (Pty) Ltd
JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTHAFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case No: J1333/12 In the matter between: Staar Surgical (Pty) Ltd Applicant and Julia Lodder Respondent Heard:
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 informationANIMALS PROTECTION ACT NO. 71 OF 1962
ANIMALS PROTECTION ACT NO. 71 OF 1962 [View Regulation] [ASSENTED TO 16 JUNE, 1962] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 DECEMBER, 1962] (Afrikaans text signed by the State President) This Act has been updated to
More information(11 February to date) NATIONAL FORESTS ACT 84 OF (Gazette No , Notice No dated 30 October 1998)
(11 February 2005 - to date) NATIONAL FORESTS ACT 84 OF 1998 (Gazette No. 19408, Notice No. 1388 dated 30 October 1998) ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 84 OF
More information20:04 PREVIOUS CHAPTER
TITLE 20 Chapter 20:04 TITLE 20 PREVIOUS CHAPTER COMMUNAL LAND ACT Acts 20/1982, 8/1985, 21/1985, 8/1988, 18/1989 (s. 32), 3/1992,25/1998, 22/2001,13/2002. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) JUDGMENT. [1] The applicant seeks a final interdict in terms of which he claims
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NUMBER: 32771/03 In the matter between: M W MOGOLEGO APPLICANT and S MATHE 1 ST RESPONDENT MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS
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 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 informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 S SENATE BILL Judiciary II Committee Substitute Adopted /1/0 House Committee Substitute Reported Without Prejudice //0 Short Title: Clarification of Nuisance
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 information[1] The applicant launched an urgent application on 9 September 2013 in which the following relief was sought:
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, KWA-ZULU-NATAL
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 informationARBITRATION RULES OF THE COMMON COURT OF JUSTICE AND ARBITRATION
COMPILATION OF TREATIES AND UNIFORM ACTS OFFICIAL TRANSLATION ARBITRATION RULES OF THE COMMON COURT OF JUSTICE AND ARBITRATION 521 522 COMPILATION OF TREATIES AND UNIFORM ACTS OFFICIAL TRANSLATION TABLE
More informationPOLICE ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART I Introduction and Interpretation
POLICE ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Introduction and Interpretation SECTION 1. Short title 2. Interpretation PART 11 Constitution and Administration 3. Constitution of the Force 4. Commissioner 5.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 395/04 In the matter between: THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN Applicant and STACEY YAWA AND OTHERS First to Eighteenth Respondents
More informationUNIT 8: HANDLING OF CLAIMS
UNIT 8: HANDLING OF CLAIMS 74 Learning outcomes After completing Unit 8, you should be able to do the following: Identify the claimants who are either fully or partially incapacitated as well as those
More informationIn these contempt proceedings the applicant was granted an interim
1 CIV/APN/335/01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter between: KOLO DIAMOND MINES (PTY) LTD APPLICANT and SELOMO MONETHI 1 ST RESPONDENT MOSALA TSELO 2 ND RESPONDENT MONONGOAHA MPEETE 3 RD RESPONDENT
More informationCOMPETITION TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 83/CR/Oct04 In the matter between : Comair Limited Applicant and The Competition Commission South African Airways (Pty) Ltd First Respondent Second
More informationHELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: J1794/2010 THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: J1794/2010 In the matter between: POPCRU Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent JUDGMENT FRANCIS J 1. The applicant,
More informationKINGDOM CATERERS (KZN) (PTY) LTD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION CASE NO: 8155/07 In the matter between: KINGDOM CATERERS (KZN) (PTY) LTD Applicant and THE BID APPEALS TRIBUNAL First Respondent THE CHAIRPERSON
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 informationCHAPTER 82:22 LICENSED PREMISES ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Licensed Premises 3 CHAPTER 82:22 LICENSED PREMISES ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART I URBAN AREAS 3. Application of Part I. 4. Restriction of opening and closing
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 NO: 9234/15 MARTIN BRUCE RENKEN IM A RENT COLLECTOR (PTY) LTD FIRST APPLICANT SECOND APPLICANT and
More informationCHAPTER 44 CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 11 SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 44 CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION. 1. Short title PART 1 PRELIMINARY 2. Interpretation PART 11 SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROCEDURE 3. Juvenile courts. 4. Special
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 informationBELIZE EQUAL PAY ACT CHAPTER 302:01 REVISED EDITION 2011 SHOWING THE SUBSTANTIVE LAWS AS AT 31 ST DECEMBER, 2011
BELIZE EQUAL PAY ACT CHAPTER 302:01 REVISED EDITION 2011 SHOWING THE SUBSTANTIVE LAWS AS AT 31 ST DECEMBER, 2011 This is a revised edition of the Substantive Laws, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE PILLAY ON 18 AUGUST Instructed by
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SITTING IN DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO D218/03 DATE HEARD: 2003/08/08 2003/08/18 DATE DELIVERED: In the matter between: HOSPERSA MOULTRIE First Applicant Second Applicant
More informationPetroleum Products and Energy Act 13 of 1990 section 4A(2)(b)
MADE IN TERMS OF section 4A(2) Regulations for Arbitration Procedures under the Petroleum Products and Energy Act, 1990 Government Notice 93 of 2003 (GG 2970) came into force on date of publication: 29
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU. and
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C of A (CIV) No 24/2016 CIV/APN/91/2016 DANIEL RANTLE Appellant and METHODIST CHURCH OF SOUTHERN AFRICA First Respondent ZIPHOZIHLE DANIEL SIWA, PRESIDING
More informationCHAPTER 20:03 NATIONAL TRUST ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTION
3 CHAPTER 20:03 NATIONAL TRUST ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTION SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Establishment and Constitution of the. 4. Tenure of office of members. 5. Functions of the. 6. Remuneration
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. THUTHABANTU PROPERTIES C C and SUMMIT WAREHOUSING (PTY) LTD.
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. 11500/2011 In the matter between: THUTHABANTU PROPERTIES C C and APPLICANT SUMMIT WAREHOUSING (PTY) LTD. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held in Chambers on 23 June 2006 Before Ncube AJ CASE NUMBER: LCC71R-06 Decided on: 26 June 2006 In the matter between : UMOBA FARMS (PTY) LTD Applicant and GANTSHO
More informationPROCEDURE & PRINCIPLES: ORDER 26A: ORDER 14 & ORDER 14A
PROCEDURE & PRINCIPLES: ORDER 26A: ORDER 14 & ORDER 14A ISBN 983-41166-7-5 Author: Nasser Hamid Binding: Softcover/Extent: 650 pp Publication Price: MYR 220.00 The law is stated as of July 1, 2004 Chapter
More informationAntisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Bill
Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2] CONTENTS Section PART 1 ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR STRATEGIES 1 Antisocial behaviour strategies 3 Reports and information 3A Scottish Ministers
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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Of interest to other judges Case No: J 580/18 In the matter between: AUBREY NDINANNYI TSHIVHANDEKANO Applicant and MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES THE
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 informationNew South Wales. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1983 No 20. Justices Legislation Amendment (Appeals) Act 1998 No 137
New South Wales OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1983 No 20 CURRENT AS AT 3 JULY 2000 COVER SHEET (ONLY) MODIFIED 24 AUGUST 2001 INCLUDES AMENDMENTS (SINCE REPRINT No 6 OF 20.1.1999) BY: Justices Legislation
More informationNORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA PROSTITUTION REGULATION ACT. As in force at 11 December 2001 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA PROSTITUTION REGULATION ACT As in force at 11 December 2001 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Definitions PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 2 OFFENCES
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT HUDACO TRADING (PTY) LTD
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: J1874/12 In the matter between: METAL AND ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION SA First applicant FRED LOUW
More informationANTARCTIC TREATIES ACT NO. 60 OF 1996
ANTARCTIC TREATIES ACT NO. 60 OF 1996 [ASSENTED TO 24 OCTOBER, 1996] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 FEBRUARY 1997] (English text signed by the President) ACT To provide for the application of certain treaties
More informationREVIEW JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 1 NOVEMBER 2002
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) HIGH COURT REF No : 1907/2002 CASE No : D 122/2002 Magistrate s Series No : 171/2002 In the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN JOHNNY BRAVO CONSTRUCTION CC KHATO CONSULTING ENGINEERS CC
IN THE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: JOHNNY BRAVO CONSTRUCTION CC Appeal No.: 2315/2014 Applicant and KHATO CONSULTING ENGINEERS CC Respondent CORAM:
More informationTEFU BEN MATSOSO Applicant THABA NCHU LONG AND SHORT DISTANCE TAXI ASSOCIATION DELIVERED ON: 25 SEPTEMBER 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: Case No.: 2165/2008 TEFU BEN MATSOSO Applicant and THABA NCHU LONG AND SHORT DISTANCE TAXI ASSOCIATION Defendant
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19)
COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19) IN exercise of the powers conferred on the Rules of Court Committee by Article 157(2) of the Constitution these Rules are made this 24th day of July, 1997. PART I-GENERAL
More informationBERMUDA CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION) (BERMUDA) ACT : 41
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION) (BERMUDA) ACT : 41 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8A 9 10 11 Short title Interpretation PART I PRELIMINARY PART II CRIMINAL
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981
81 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981 82 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981 Rules Contents Page No. 1. Title 83 2. Definition 83
More informationJUDGMENT: 8 NOVEMBER [1] This is an application by the Defendant to permit the joinder of Dr. Smith (the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No: 21453/10 In the matter between: MICHAEL DAVID VAN DEN HEEVER In his representative capacity on behalf of Pierre van den Heever
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case Number: 1462/2014 In the matter of:- LAURIKA KOEN Applicant and KEALY SAMANTHA BUBB PETER JOHN BUBB 1 st Respondent 2 nd Respondent HEARD
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED Case number: 39959/2014..... In the matter between: GR5
More informationDOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT NO. 116 OF 1998
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT NO. 116 OF 1998 [View Regulation] [ASSENTED TO 20 NOVEMBER, 1998] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 15 DECEMBER, 1999] (English text signed by the President) This Act has been updated to Government
More informationEnforcement and prosecution policy
Enforcement and prosecution policy Policy EAS/8001/1/1 Issued 07/08/08 Introduction 1. The Environment Agency's aim is to provide a better environment for England and Wales both for the present and for
More informationCHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS
Print Close Ordinance Nos, 48 of 1939 13 of 1944 42 of 1944 12 of 1945 Act Nos, 47 of 1956 2 of 1978 Short title and date of operation- CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE PROVISION FOR THE
More informationIN THE GAUTENG DIVISION HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
1 IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Case Number: 31971/2011 Coram: Molefe J Heard: 21 July 2014 Delivered: 11 September 2014 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST
More informationREPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE ACTS SUPPLEMENT. Published by Authority
1 of 15 27/04/2015 1:41 PM Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (No. 17 of 2014) Long Title Enacting Formula Part I PRELIMINARY 1 Short title and commencement 2 Interpretation Part II OFFENCES 3 Intentionally
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 (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) PATRICK S. MPAKA SIMLINDILE MNAMATHA XOLISA BANTSHI NOLWANDO LITHOLI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) CASE NO: 3627/2015 In the matter between: PATRICK S. MPAKA SIMLINDILE MNAMATHA XOLISA BANTSHI NOLWANDO LITHOLI 1 ST Applicant 2
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG CASE NO. 100/2014 In the matter between: SCHALK VISSER PLAINTIFF and PEWTER STAR INVESTMENTS CC 1 ST DEFENDANT SUSANNA MARGARETHA WEISS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND a/aldon Shabalala 1 Alson Kosi Shabalala vs The Swaziland Government The Nhlangano Magistrate Civ. Case No. 2618/95 Coram S.W. Sapire A C J For Applicant For Respondent PR.
More informationDUBAI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE RULES 2007 AS OF 22 ND FEBRUARY Introductory Provisions. Article (1) Definitions
DUBAI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE RULES 2007 AS OF 22 ND FEBRUARY 2011 Introductory Provisions Article (1) Definitions 1.1 The following words and phrases shall have the meaning assigned thereto unless
More information