NOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) JUDGMENT
|
|
- Martha Cannon
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) 2008 Case no. Judgment reserved:02 June 2008 Judgment handed down: 06 June In the Ex-Parte application of DALE BARRATT For her admission and enrolment as an attorney Applicant JUDGMENT LEGODI J, [1] The applicant is asking for relief in the following terms: 1.1 Condoning in terms of section 13(2) of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979, the period of articles served irregularly from 2 January 2007 to 1 April 2007 and declaring same to be regular service under a contract of articles or a contract of service; 1.2 Directing that the applicant be admitted as an attorney of the High Court of South Africa and that her name be placed on the
2 roll of attorneys of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court of South Africa. [2] On 2 January 2007, the applicant entered into a contract of Articles of Clerkship for a period of one year, the applicant having attended and satisfactorily completed the practical legal training course from June 2006 in terms of section 2 (1) (A)(a) of the Attorneys Act, 53 of 1979 ( the Act ). [3] On 24 February 2007, the applicant addressed a letter to the Law Society of the Northern Provinces ( the Law Society ) in which the contract of Articles of Clerkship aforesaid, was enclosed. [4] On the 2 May 2007, the Law Society is said to have returned to the applicant the said contract of Articles of Clerkship via Docex. [5] As on 23 May 2007, the applicant had not as yet received any correspondence from the Law Society, despite the suggestion that the contract had been returned to her. Further enquiries were then made by the applicant. [6] The applicant then later received a letter from the Law Society dated the 20 March In this letter, she was advised that she could only be registered as a candidate attorney as from 3 January 2007 as the principal had three candidates up to 2 January In the letter from the Law Society, the applicant was advised to amend the date of 2 January This was accordingly amended by the applicant as advised and sent back the contract to the Law Society as per letter dated 30 May 2007.
3 3 [7] On 31 May 2007, the Law Society wrote back to the applicant advising her that the contract could not be registered as her principal had already three candidate attorneys registered in his name, as at the 30 March [8] The letter of 31 May 2007 is said to have come to the attention of the applicant during June [9] By the time the Law Society wrote a letter dated 31 May 2007, one of the principal s candidate attorneys had already ceded his contract of articles of clerkship to another principal, this having occurred on 30 March [10] The applicant was then advised by an official of the Law Society to enter into another contract of Articles of Clerkship with effect from the 2 April This was conveyed in an e- mail dated 15 June [11] Subsequent to entering into a new contract of Articles of clerkship as advised, the contract was then registered by the Law Society on 21 June 2007 apparently with effect from the 2 April [12] On 6 February 2008, the applicant deposed to her supporting affidavit to this application. She indicated that she was 32 weeks pregnant with twins and that she has been advised by her doctor to take maternity leave with effect from the middle of February [13] The applicant would prefer not to have to return to work for some time after giving birth, to complete the last four or six weeks of the contract of Articles of Clerkship signed on 2 April According to the applicant, in the middle of February
4 2008 she would have served thirteen and half months of Articleship, apparently relocking the period from 2 January [14] According to her, she had served her principal in terms of the contract of Articles entered into on 2 January 2007 and the one signed on 2 April Sufficient cause is said to exist for this court to condone the period between 2 January 2007 and 1 April 2007 as regular service in terms of section 13(2) of the Act. [15] Section 13(2) of the Act provides that if any person has not served regularly as a candidate attorney, the court, if satisfied that such irregular service was occasioned by sufficient cause and that such service is substantially equivalent to regular service, and that the society concerned has had due to notice of the application, may permit such person, on such conditions as it may deem fit, to apply for admission as an attorney as if he or she had served regularly under articles or contract of service. [16] An applicant who wishes to invoke the provisions of section 13(2) must therefore establish the following: 16.2 Firstly, that irregular service was occasioned by sufficient cause, 16.2 secondly, that such service is substantially equivalent to the regular service, 16.3 and lastly, that the Law Society had due notice of the application.
5 5 [17] What is of concern though is whether the irregular service could be said to have been occasioned by sufficient cause. The irregular service here resulted from the fact that as at the time the contract of Articles of Clerkship was signed on 2 January 2007, the principal had three candidate attorneys registered under him, and the principal was aware of that fact. [19] Section 3(3) of the Act provides that an attorney shall at no time have more than three candidate attorneys under Articles of Clerkship. [20] I understood Mr Bezuidenhout counsel for the applicant submission to be that we should condone this non compliance as empowered to do so in terms of section 13(2). [21] In making this submission, counsel relied on the decision of Hlophe JP and Traverso DJP in Ex-parte Ndabangaye 2004(3) SA 415 CPD. In that matter, the applicant applied for condonation of irregular service of contract of Articleship and admission as an attorney. In that case the facts were briefly the following: 21.1 The applicant at the time when he entered into Articles of Clerkship and at the time when her contract was registered by the Law Society, her name was still on the roll of advocates. She discovered later at the time when she was preparing for her admission that despite having instructed an attorney to do so, her name was not removed from the roll of advocates She immediately caused her name to be removed from the roll of advocates which was done on 7 November Thereafter, her application for admission as an
6 attorney was enrolled. Based on this set of facts, irregular service was condoned and she was admitted as an attorney. [22] Section 12 of the Act provides that any person admitted to practice as an advocate shall not be allowed to register articles of a contract of service in terms of the provisions of this Act, unless his name has on his own application been removed from the roll of Advocates. [23] I have considered the reasoning in Ex-parte Ndabangaye referred to above. I also had regard to the authorities referred to in that judgment insofar as they might be relevant. [24] Of importance, is that each case has to be decided on its facts in determining whether irregular service has been occasioned by reasonable and acceptable explanation or cause. [25] In considering the facts of the case, I will also have regard to the provisions of section 5 of the Act. [26] For the sake of completeness, the section is repeated as follows: 5. Lodging, examination and registration of articles or contract of service 1) The original of any articles of clerkship or contract of service shall within two months of the date thereof be lodged by the principal concerned with the secretary of the society of the province in which the service under such articles or contract of service is to be performed. 2) The secretary of the society concerned shall, on payment of the
7 7 fees prescribed under section 80, examine any articles or contract of service lodged with him and shall, if he is satisfied that the articles are or contract of service is in order and that the council has no objection to the registration thereof, on payment of the fees so prescribed register such articles or contract of service and shall advise the principal and candidate attorney concerned of such registration in writing by certified post. 3) If articles of clerkship are or a contract of service is not registered within two months of the date thereof, any service there under shall be deemed to commence on the date or registration thereof. [27] The Law Society in the dated 7 May 2008 advised the appellant that her application in terms of section 13(2) of the Act cannot succeed and consequently neither the application for admission as an attorney. [28] In adopting this attitude the Law Society took into account what was said in Bosman V Prokureursorder van Transvaal 1984 (2) SA 633 (T), wherein it was held that only irregular service under a valid or binding contract of articles could be condoned by the court under section 13(2). [29] In response to the of the 7 May 2008, the applicant drew the Law Society s attention to the decision in Expart Ndabangaye. The Law Society then left the granting of the applicant s prayers in the discretion of this court. [30] Articles of Clerkship in terms of section 1 means a contract in writing under which any person is bound to serve as attorney for a specified period in accordance with the Act. To be valid, the contract of articles or services must be registered in terms of section 5 of the Act. Now the period for which the applicant seeks condonation was not registered in terms of section 5.
8 This raises another issue, that is, whether the applicant could be said to have been a candidate attorney from the 2 January 2007 to the 2 April 2007? A candidate attorney is described as any person bound to serve under articles of clerkship. [31] The Law Society refused to register the contract with effect from the 2 January 2007 as at this stage, till up to the 30 March 2007, the principal in question already had three candidate attorneys. The effect of this was that, had the Law Society registered the applicant with effect from the 2 January 2007, this would have been contrary to the provisions of section 3(3). [32] Now, a court considering an application for condonation under section 13(2) is bound to consider the adequacy of the applicant s grounds for condonation. In doing so, the court will have due regard to the facts of each specific application and more importantly the intention of the legislature and the applicant s right to be admitted to the profession he or she chose without undue impediment. [33] Initially the Law Society in its letter of 20 March 2007, suggested that the contract would be registered once the date on the contract is amended to the 3 January This appeared not to have been correct as after the amendment, the Law Society still refused to register the contract as apparently until up to 30 March 2007, the principal was still having three candidate attorneys registered against his name. [34] This is disclosed in the applicant s affidavit and the averment is based in an affidavit deposed to by the principal on the 7 June 2007 in terms of which it is confirmed that a candidate attorney by the names of Akarshan Bagwandin was in his
9 9 employer from 17 August 2005 until the 30 March The principal then concluded in this affidavit, that he was agreeing to the cession in terms of the cession agreement accompanying the affidavit. [35] The explanation for non-compliance with the provisions of section 3(3) is contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the principal s affidavit which is repeated herein as follow: 4. On 2 January 2007 and at Johannesburg, the Applicant entered into a written contract of Articles of Clerkship ( the Articles ) with me as her Principal. At the time, I was aware that I had three candidate attorneys under me, but as one of them completed his service with me on 2 January 2007, I did not expect the Law Society to object to the Applicant signing her contract of Articles on 2 January The applicant was prejudiced by the fact that the Law Society s letter dated 20 March 2007(attached to the Applicant s founding affidavit marked DB9) only reached the Applicant on 23 March In this letter, the Law Society instructs the applicant to enter into a new contract of Articles dated 3 January By the time the letter reached us on 23 May 2007, I already had a third candidate attorney under my name, but in error I followed the Law Society s advices as per the aforesaid letter (DB9) and entered into a new contract of Articles with the Applicant dated 3 January From the aforegoing, it is clear that due to a series of errors at no fault of the Applicant, and as more fully set out in the applicant s affidavit, the registration of the
10 Applicant s contract or articles is only effective from 2 April 2007, and not 2 January 2007, having only been registered on 1 June 2007 under number 923/ As the Applicant has served as my candidate attorney continuously since 2 January 2007 to date, I therefore fully support the Applicant s application for condonation in terms of section 13(2) of the Attorneys Act, 53 of 1979, as amended ( the Act ). [36] Before I deal with the sufficiency and reasonableness of the explanation, I need to have regard to the intention of the Legislature in terms of section 3(3) of the Act. The purpose is to ensure that candidate attorneys are given adequate training and mentoring in the work they are assigned to do by their principals. In doing so, the Legislature limited the number of candidate attorneys a principal may have at any given moment. [37] In paragraph 11 of the Principal s affidavit, it is stated that the applicant has to the best of the Principal s knowledge and belief, gained experience in many facets of the law. The averment in my view does not sufficiently place us in a better position to determine that the applicant s training and experience were not affected by the principal s engagement of more than three candidate attorneys contrary to the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act. [38] However, what is more important is the explanation given for non-compliance with the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act. Firstly, the first contract of Articles of Clerkship was concluded on 2 January This was when the Principal believed that
11 11 there would be no problem as one of his candidate attorneys would have completed his service of contract of Articles on the 2 January 2007 and that therefore it was not expected that the Law Society would object to the applicant signing her contract of Articles on 2 January [39] This explanation by the principal should be seen in the light of the fact that as on the 30 March 2007, the principal had three candidate attorneys being the maximum as allowed by the Act. The applicant was not one of the three. [40] The principal seeks to attribute the fault and the blame to the Law Society in not conveying the contents of the letter dated 20 March 2007 timeously to the applicant, the letter having been received by the applicant only in May In fact it was incumbent on the Principal together with the applicant to ensure that there was compliance with the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act. [41] The further explanation by the principal is this, by the time the letter of the 20 March 2007 reached his attention on 23 May 2007 he already had a third candidate attorney. Strange indeed, remember, one candidate is said to have completed his contract of Articles on 2 January On the same day, the principal signed a contract of Articleship with the applicant for one year. What is not explained is how did the principal manage to have a third candidate attorney excluding the applicant by 30 March 2007? Two things could have happened. Either no candidate attorney completed his contract of Articleship on the 2 January 2007 or that, in addition to the applicant, the principal signed and concluded another contract or articles with another candidate attorney in the face of the remaining two candidate attorneys after the
12 one had completed his service of articles on 2 January [42] Service of contract of articleship from the 2 January 2007 to 2 April 2007 is in two respects irregular. First it was not registered as required in terms of section 5, secondly, it was contrary to the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act. The issue is whether the explanation has passed the test of section 13(2) of the Act. The facts of the present case and the cogency of the explanation is in my view not the same as in Ex-parte Ndabangaye. There, the contract was registered from the date on which the contract was concluded. Secondly, the explanation for not complying with the provisions of section 12 of the Act was accepted as being reasonable, the applicant having instructed an attorney before entering into a contract of Articleship. But, even most importantly as at the time the application for admission was made, her name had been removed from the roll of Advocates. Conversely in the present case, failure to comply with the provisions of section 3(3) cannot be undone. Secondly, the explanation given by the applicant and his principal is not sufficient and reasonable. [43] I am mindful of the applicant s constitutional right to be admitted to the profession she chose. This should however, be seen in context. Two things appear to have motivated the appellant to bring the application for her admission at this stage. Firstly, that in the light of her pregnancy, she had to go on maternity leave from the middle of February At the time she deposed to her affidavit on the 6 February 2008, she expected to deliver twins through caesarean action by the middle of March She did not wish to return to work to complete the period of articleship after the birth of her twins. Secondly, the applicant felt that she qualifies in terms of
13 13 section 13(2) to have her irregular service from the 2 January 2007 to 2 April 2007 be condoned. [44] Refusal of the applicant s application for condonation in these circumstances cannot be said to be denying her to follow the profession of her choice. Quite to the contrary, the applicant can justify such condonation by justifying the interruption of her contract at a later stage after the maternity leave. That is, after her maternity leave, she can serve the remaining period and then bring an application in terms of section 13(2) to condone such an interruption. Again the circumstances in this regard are not the same as in Exparte-Ndabangaye. To refuse the condonation in Ndabangaye s matter would have meant service of articles of Clerkship afresh. That is not the case in the present case. The applicant can still complete the last four or six weeks of the contract signed on the 2 April 2007, whereafter she would be entitled to approach this court on the same papers, duly supplemented, to the extent necessary. [45] Consequently, I make the following order: 45.1 The application for condonation in terms of section 13(2) of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979 for irregular service of articles of clerkship is refused The application for admission as an attorney is postponed sine die. M F LEGODI JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
14 I, agree T M MAKGOKA ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT SCHINDLERS ATTORNEYS Applicant s attorneys c/o FRIEDLAND HART 201 Van Der Stel Building, 1 st Floor, 179 Pretorius Street PRETORIA Tel no
ATTORNEYS ACT 53 OF 1979
ATTORNEYS ACT 53 OF 1979 [ASSENTED TO 21 MAY 1979] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JUNE 1979] (Afrikaans text signed by the State President) as amended by Attorneys Amendment Act 76 of 1980 Attorneys Amendment
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 informationATTORNEYS ACT 53 OF (Afrikaans text signed by the State President) [Assented To: 21 May 1979] [Commencement Date: 1 June 1979] as amended by:
ATTORNEYS ACT 53 OF 1979 (Afrikaans text signed by the State President) [Assented To: 21 May 1979] [Commencement Date: 1 June 1979] as amended by: Attorneys Amendment Act 76 of 1980 Attorneys Amendment
More informationATTORNEYS ACT NO. 53 OF 1979
ATTORNEYS ACT NO. 53 OF 1979 [View Regulation] [ASSENTED TO 21 MAY, 1979] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JUNE, 1979] (Afrikaans text signed by the State President) This Act has been updated to Government Gazette
More informationATTORNEYS ACT 53 OF 1979
Page 1 of 65 ATTORNEYS ACT 53 OF 1979 [ASSENTED TO 21 MAY 1979] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JUNE 1979] (Afrikaans text signed by the State President) as amended by Attorneys Amendment Act 76 of 1980 Attorneys
More informationAPPLICATION FOR ADMISSION AS ATTORNEY
APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION AS ATTORNEY The requirements for admission as an attorney are summarized in Section 15 of Attorneys Act 53 of 1979, as amended ( the Act ). Section 2 to 9 of the Act and Regulation
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Date: 21/08/2008 Case No: 21803/2004 UNREPORTABLE In the case between: RIENA CHARLES Applicant And PREMIER OF THE PROVINCE OF MPULALANGA
More 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 informationGovernment Gazette REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Please note that most Acts are published in English and another South African official language. Currently we only have capacity to publish the English versions. This means that this document will only
More informationRAMPAI, J. [1] Two applications were presented to me on Friday the 28. October The one which was the main was about leave
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the case between: Case no. 1604/2004 DANIE LOUW HANDELAARS BK Applicant and NEUHOFF AND VAN DEVENTER PETRUS JACOBUS ANTON NEUHOFF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHASWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE NO : 265/02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHASWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In thematterbetween: TSHEPO JOHN MAAGA APPLICANT and BRIAN ST CLAIR COOPER NO BLESSING GCABASHE NO FERDINAND ZONDAGH
More informationTHE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN PROVINCES (INCORPORATED AS THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE TRANSVAAL) RULES
THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN PROVINCES (INCORPORATED AS THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE TRANSVAAL) RULES The Rules made under the authority of section 74 of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979, and promulgated in Government
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 informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 18 OCTOBER 2004
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE No: 924/2004 In the matter of NEDCOR BANK LTD Applicant and LISINFO 61 TRADING (PTY) LTD
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007. In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007 In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN BEATRIX OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE First Applicant Second Applicant versus OOSTHUYSEN
More informationThe first plaintiff is a businessman who was acting as an agent of the. terms of the laws of the Republic of South Africa.
2 Introduction 1. This matter came to court by way of action. The first plaintiff is a businessman who was acting as an agent of the second, third and fourth plaintiffs who are all companies registered
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISON)
2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISON) UNREPORTABLE In the matter between: Case No: 35420 / 03 Date heard: 17 & 21/02/2006 Date of judgment: 4/8/2006 PAUL JACOBUS SMIT PLAINTIFF
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 informationIndiana Rules of Court Rules for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys
Indiana Rules of Court Rules for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys Rule 5. Foreign Legal Consultants (1) General Regulation as to Licensing. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: JR 1231/12 In the matter between: PAUL REFILOE MAHAMO Applicant And CMC di RAVENNA SOUTH AFRICA
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES OF NATAL
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 2/98 JOAQUIM AUGUSTO DE FREITAS INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION OF ADVOCATES OF SOUTH AFRICA First Applicant Second Applicant versus THE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES OF NATAL
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 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 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 informationOrder INQUIRY REGARDING THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA S SEARCH FOR RECORDS
Order 00-04 INQUIRY REGARDING THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA S SEARCH FOR RECORDS David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner February 2, 2000 Order URL: http://www.oipcbc.org/order/order00-04.html
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 EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO: 563/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO: 563/2008 In the matter between: NONTWAZANA MANGQO Plaintiff and MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, EASTERN CAPE Defendant JUDGMENT
More informationTHE KWAZULU-NATAL LAW SOCIETY CHECK LISTS INDEX
THE KWAZULU-NATAL LAW SOCIETY CHECK LISTS INDEX PAGE INDEX E-1 A. ARTICLES OF CLERKSHIP / CONTRACT OF SERVICE: CHECK LIST...E-2 ARTICLES OF CLERKSHIP AGREEMENT E-6 APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF ARTICLES
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) CASE NO.: 1355/2013. In the matter between: And JUDGMENT BESHE J:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) In the matter between: NANDIPHA ELTER JACK CASE NO.: 1355/2013 Plaintiff And ANDILE BALENI NS NOMBAMBELA INCORPORATED First Defendant
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA m IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) CASE NO: 8675/2009 fl) REPORTABLE:^ /(NO) (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: # S^No) (3) REVISED. df^ja - DATE SIGWTPCTRE
More informationn mad IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG DIVISION) JUDGMENT
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLB*B6/NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO. (3) REVISED. \/~ n mad IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG DIVISION) In the matter between:
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE ) n i c r yyv i 0 (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) ;2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YBS/NO. (3) REVISED. / /l \ CASE No. 60892/2011
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2009-02708 BETWEEN SYDNEY ORR APPLICANT AND THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr. Justice A. des Vignes
More informationDRAFT ORDER OF COURT
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO.: 66210/09 In the matter between: THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN PROVINCES {Incorporated as the Law Society of the Transvaal)
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 informationHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5295 of 2010 WITH SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5296 OF 2010 AND SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5297 OF 2010 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
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 informationOF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Parliament of the Republic of South Africa/ Parlement van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 726 Draft Political Party Funding Bill, 2017: Parliament of the Republic of South Africa 41125 4 No. 41125 GOVERNMENT
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held at RANDBURG on 25 October 1999 before Gildenhuys J, Goldblatt (assessor) Decided on: 30 November 1999 CASE NUMBER: LCC116/98 In the case of: THE FORMER HIGHLANDS
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: J 3275/98. In the matter between:
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: J 3275/98 In the matter between: SUN INTERNATIONAL (SOUTH AFRICA) LIMITED TRADING AS MORULA SUN HOTEL AND CASINO and COMMISSION FOR
More informationGovernment Gazette Staatskoerant
Government Gazette Staatskoerant REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIEK VAN SUID AFRIKA Regulation Gazette No. 10177 Regulasiekoerant Vol. 627 19 September September 2017 No. 41125 N.B. The Government Printing
More informationMEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: CA 337/2013 DATE HEARD: 18/8/14 DATE DELIVERED: 22/8/14 REPORTABLE In the matter between: IKAMVA ARCHITECTS CC APPELLANT and MEC FOR
More informationProvincial Gazette Provinsiale Koerant
The Province of Gauteng UNITY IN DIVERSITY Die Provinsie Van Gauteng Provincial Gazette Provinsiale Koerant EXTRAORDINARY BUITENGEWOON Selling price Verkoopprys: R2.50 Other countries Buitelands: R3.25
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. : 3861/2013 In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI Applicant and MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
P a g e 1 Reportable Circulate to Judges Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley) Case Nr: 826/2010 Date heard:
More information7 01 THE WORKFORCE GROUP (PTY) (LTD) A...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA Case number 57110/2011 In the matter of THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR THE COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER First Applicant
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 informationBuffalo City Metropolitan Municipality JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION Case nos: EL270/17; ECD970/17 Date heard: 22/6/17 Date delivered: 28/6/17 Not reportable In the matter between: David Barker Applicant
More informationLABOUR COURT RULES, 2017 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I PRELIMINARY
Statutory Instrument 150 of 2017 LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017 SI 150/2017, 8/2018. ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I PRELIMINARY Rule 1. Title. 2. Application. 3. Interpretation. 4. Computation of time and certain
More informationELECTORAL ACT 73 OF 1998
ELECTORAL ACT 73 OF 1998 [ASSENTED TO 12 OCTOBER 1998] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 16 OCTOBER 1998] (UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED) (English text signed by the President) as amended by Local Government: Municipal
More information88 No GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 12 NOVEMBER 2004
88 No. 26994 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 12 NOVEMBER 2004 STAATSKOERANT, 12 NOVEMBER 2004 No. 26994 89 90 No. 26994 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 12 NOVEMBER 2004 STAATSKOERANT, 12 NOVEMBER 2004 No. 26994 91 92 No. 26994
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, 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 (NORTH GAUTENG,
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, GRAHAMSTOWN
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, GRAHAMSTOWN NOT REPORTABLE PARTIES: MBANJWA INC AND ALBANY AUTO TRIMMERS Registrar: CA 127/09 Magistrate: High Court: EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, GRAHAMSTOWN
More informationPlease quote our reference: PFA/KN/ /2015/MD REGISTERED POST. Dear Sir,
4 th Floor Riverwalk Office Park Block A, 41 Matroosberg Road Ashlea Gardens, Extension 6 PRETORIA SOUTH AFRICA 0181 P.O. Box 580, MENLYN, 0063 Tel: 012 346 1738, Fax: 086 693 7472 E-Mail: enquiries@pfa.org.za
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT MICHAEL MATHIESON LYALL JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable/Reportable Case No: JS171/14 In the matter between: CITY OF JOHANNESBURG Applicant and MICHAEL MATHIESON
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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: JR1944/12 DAVID CHAUKE Applicant and SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL THE MINISTER OF POLICE COMMISSIONER F J
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO. CA&R 53/2013 REPORTABLE JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO. CA&R 53/2013 REPORTABLE In the matter between: SIPHO ALPHA KONDLO Appellant and EASTERN CAPE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Respondent JUDGMENT
More informationConcor Defined Contribution Pension Fund DETERMINATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 30M OF THE PENSION FUNDS ACT 24 OF 1956
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR In the complaint between: CASE NO: PFA/GA/608/04/Z/VIA Orbet Sibanyoni Complainant and Concor Holdings (Pty) Ltd First Respondent Concor Defined Contribution
More informationAMENDED AND RE-STATED BY-LAWS OF THE COOK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION. Article I. Name
AMENDED AND RE-STATED BY-LAWS OF THE COOK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION Article I. Name Section 1.1. Name. The Name of this Association shall be the COOK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION (the Association ). Article II.
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) THE REGISTRAR OF THE HEAL TH PROFESSIONS COUNCIL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: Y,E'S/ ) (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Y,Ji.S@ (3) REVISED f DATE /4 /tr r ;}c,1"1 ~--+----
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, BHISHO) YISEHLELI EDWARD NYANISO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, BHISHO) CASE NO: 643/2014 In the matter between: YISEHLELI EDWARD NYANISO Applicant And HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS, RECREATION, ARTS AND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG NORTH, PRETORIA) ZO/C In the matter between: DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG NORTH, PRETORIA) ZO/C In the matter between: CASE NO: 2784/2006 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE:(?ES^: JOHANNA WILSON (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, AT DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D477/11 In the matter between:- HOSPERSA First Applicant E. JOB Second Applicant and CHITANE SOZA
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 informationGuide to proceedings in the Competition Tribunal: Reviewing a reviewable determination
Guide to proceedings in the Competition Tribunal: Reviewing a reviewable determination This leaflet is designed to provide you with a brief outline of the practice and procedure of reviewing a reviewable
More informationMr V Ramaano Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development CAPE TOWN
4 March 2011 Email: vramaano@parliament.gov.za Mr V Ramaano Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development CAPE TOWN Dear Sir COMMENTS: STATE LIABILITY BILL We attach hereto comments by
More informationCase No: C1118/2001. Second Respondent MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN Case No: C1118/2001 In the matter between: RAHUL GRILO Applicant and THE JULIUS SOLOMON GROUP THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION First Respondent Second
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 informationJUDGMENT. [1] The applicants herein had earlier approached this Court for an order, inter
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH NOT REPORTABLE In the matter between: ANTHONY LAURISTON BIGGS RIDGE FARM CC Case no: 3323/2013 Date heard: 6.3.2014 Date
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KATHLEEN MARGARET SATCHWELL PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 48/02 KATHLEEN MARGARET SATCHWELL Applicant versus PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT First Respondent
More informationINTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
INTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA 117/13 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION (SATAWU) FRANS PHOKOBJE First Appellant Second
More informationIn the Labour Court of South Africa Held in Johannesburg. Northern Training Trust. Third Respondent. Judgment
1 In the Labour Court of South Africa Held in Johannesburg In the matter between: Case number: JR268/ 02 Northern Training Trust Applicant and Josiah Maake Sita Gesina Maria Du Toit CCMA First Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA) CASE NO.: 943/2007. In the matter between: And
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA) In the matter between: THABO MTHEMBU CASE NO.: 943/2007 Plaintiff And MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION, EASTERN CAPE BUYISILE ZOKO
More informationJUDGMENT. The applicants wish to institute action against the respondents for damages
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NOT REPORTABLE (SOUTH EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION) Case No.: 3207/06 Date delivered: 1.4.08 In the matter between: ERROL CLIVE VAN VUUREN First Applicant PATRICIA VAN
More informationHIGH COURT RULES OF COURT SUPREME COURT ACT 59 OF 1959 UNIFORM RULES OF COURT
HIGH COURT RULES OF COURT SUPREME COURT ACT 59 OF 1959 UNIFORM RULES OF COURT RULES REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVERAL PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL DIVISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) GARDEN CITIES (INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN)
REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Before the Hon Mr Justice NJ Yekiso In the matter between: GARDEN CITIES (INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN) Case
More informationas amended by ACT [long title amended by Act 25 of 1985] (Afrikaans text signed by the State President) (Assented to 2nd October, 1970)
Limitation of Legal Proceedings (Provincial and Local Authorities) Act 94 of 1970 (RSA) (RSA GG 2902) brought into force in South Africa and South West Africa on 1 December 1970 by RSA Proc. R.286/1970
More informationINFORMATION NOTARIAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION: 11 OCTOBER 2017
INFORMATION NOTARIAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION: 11 OCTOBER 2017 Enclosed herewith is the information relating to the notarial practice examination which includes a registration form for completion and the syllabus.
More information[1] This is an urgent application for an interdict restraining the first, second
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 9940/06 In the matter between: JONAS DANIEL CHARLES DE BRUYN First Applicant MARGARET MARIA DE BRUYN Second Applicant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 35051/2003 DATE: 3/9/2007 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN D SAMPO V M S SAMPO FIRST APPLICANT SECOND APPLICANT AND IVAN DAVIES THEUNISSEN
More informationSOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. SP&C CATERING INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.2010/09079 Date:22/09/2010 In the matter between: SP&C CATERING INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and MANUEL JORGE MAIA DA CRUZ First
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. Lampac CC t/a Packaging World. John Henry Hawkey N.O.
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 17047/2009 In the matter between Lampac CC t/a Packaging World Applicant and John Henry Hawkey N.O. First Respondent John Dua Attorneys
More 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 informationStay on Execution: When & How
Stay on Execution: When & How by Rakesh Kumar Singh ************** Decade is a normal time period if one is to ask a plaintiff of a civil suit more particularly he who wants to get the possession of his
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 informationBy-Law No. 1. Professional Engineers Ontario
Professional Engineers Ontario By-Law No. 1 A by-law relating to the administrative and domestic affairs of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario as approved by Council on June 25, 1984,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION CASE: 504/07. In the matter between: MORETELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY APPLICANT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION CASE: 504/07 In the matter between: MORETELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY APPLICANT and NKADIMENG BOTLHALE TRAINING AND CONSULTANCY CC RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA
V IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA Not reportable In the matter between - CASE NO: 2015/54483 HENDRIK ADRIAAN ROETS Applicant And MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER
More informationIn the matter between: UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application in terms of which applicant seeks the following declaratory orders:
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION & ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER JANSEN VAN VUUREN N.O JUDITH
More informationCHAPTER 20 FLORIDA REGISTERED PARALEGAL PROGRAM SUBCHAPTER 20-1 PREAMBLE RULE PURPOSE
CHAPTER 20 FLORIDA REGISTERED PARALEGAL PROGRAM SUBCHAPTER 20-1 PREAMBLE RULE 20-1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to set forth a definition that must be met in order to use the title paralegal,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA) In the matter between: Case No: 55443/10 FIRST RAND BANK LIMITED t/a APPLICANT FNB HOME LOANS And DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
More informationPractice Manual of the South Gauteng High Court ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Practice Manual of the South Gauteng High Court January 2010 Johannesburg ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This office is indebted to would like to acknowledge the contribution of the following: (towards) (i) (ii) (iii)
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED 24 NOVEMBER 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) REPORTABLE Case Numbers: 16996/2017 In the matter between: NEVILLE COOPER Applicant and MAGISTRATE MHLANGA Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED
More informationJUDGMENT. 1 I am required to decide the disputes disclosed by the defendant's. special plea of prescription raised in defence to the plaintiffs claim.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 5664/2011 In the matter between: EDWARD THOMPSON Plaintiff and CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Defendant JUDGMENT Tuchten
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG Reportable/Not Reportable Case NO: J2074/17 In the matter between PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA PORTIA CHUENE AND 55 OTHERS First Applicant
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 informationL G ELECTRONICS (PTY) LTD. Urgent application to enforce restraint of trade. Matter is not urgent. JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case number: J 2330/2016 In the matter between: L G ELECTRONICS (PTY) LTD Applicant and NATHAN NEYT IMPERIAL AIR CONDITIONING (PTY) LTD First
More informationIt?.. 't?.!~e/7. \0 \ ':;) \ d-0,1 2ND DEFENDANT 3RD DEFENDANT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE N0.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE 1. REPORTABLE: YES/ NO 2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO \0 \ ':;) \ d-0,1 3. ~EVSED It?.. 't?.!~e/7
More information