FENCECOR KONSTRUCSIE CC MOSES KOTANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
|
|
- Dylan Lane
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.: 950/2010 In the matter between: FENCECOR KONSTRUCSIE CC Applicant and MOSES KOTANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Respondent CIVIL MATTER KGOELE J DATE OF HEARING : 02 February 2012 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01 March 2012 FOR THE PLAINTIFF : Advocate Hitge FOR THE DEFENDANT : Advocate Maree JUDGMENT 1
2 KGOELE J: [1] This is an application for exception in terms of Rule 23 (1) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The application arises as a result of the exception raised by the defendant to the plaintiff s amended particulars of claim. In this judgment the parties are referred to as in the main action. [2] The defendant filed an exception to the plaintiff s particulars of claim on the ground that the said pleading did not disclose a course of action. [3] This application constitutes a second application by the defendant in that defendant had already on the 27 th October 2010 filed an exception (first exception) to the same particulars of claim. The first exception was heard on the 31 st March 2011 and was dismissed by this court with costs. This second exception, which is the subject matter before this court was subsequently filed on the 24 th May [4] At the hearing of the second exception the plaintiff raised a point in limine that the present exception is not provided for in the Rules of court, and cannot be entertained by this court. The parties then agreed that the issue as raised by the plaintiff should be decided first by this court before the merits of the exception can be proceeded with. [5] Mr Maree on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the grounds on which the exception is based overlaps with that of the first exception. According to him there is no provision in the rules or in practice in
3 terms of which a party is entitled or allowed to file a second exception based on the same ground against the same pleading after the first exception has been dismissed. [6] Mr Maree did not have any authority to refer the court to, but insisted that the ground upon which the defendant relies in this second exception, that the pleadings do not disclose a cause of action, had already been decided upon during the first exception. Furthermore that although the defendant alleges that they are bringing the second exception on the same ground but on different reasons, this cannot be allowed as those reasons ought to have been dealt with by the defendant in the first exception. He persisted with this submission that according to Rule 23 only two grounds can be raised in an exception, namely:- - that the pleading are vague and embarrassing or - that they do not disclose a cause of action According to him, this court had already ruled against the ground that the pleadings do not disclose a cause of action. The ruling of the court came after the court had looked into the contents of the same pleadings that are the subject matter of the second exception. The court cannot under these circumstances entertain the second exception but to dismiss it. [7] Mr Hitge on behalf of the defendant on the other hand submitted that it is a matter of common sense that when a defendant has other reasons than those canvassed in the first application, nothing in our law prevents him for bringing another application based on the same ground. He maintained that it is also in the interest of the court that 3
4 this should be done as the other reasons raised in the exception can dispose off the matter. [8] Mr Hitge also, like Mr Maree, did not have any authority to support these submissions. In an answer as to why the new reasons could not be dealt with in the first exception, he indicated that the previous legal representative of the defendant omitted to include them. The defendant was not happy with that, hence the current legal representative was sought. [9] I may also point out that I was unable to get any case law or authority that deals directly with the issue that is before me. [10] However, I found the principles as laid down in the cases that I had quoted in the paragraphs that follows apposite in this matter. [11] Firstly, in the matter of Bafokeng Tribe V Impala Platinum Ltd and Others 1999 (3) SA 517 (BHL) Friedman J said the following:- A court must have regard to the object of the exceptio res judicata that it was introduced with the endeavour of putting a limit to needless litigation and in order to prevent the recapitulation of the same thing in dispute in diverse actions, with the concomitant deleterious effect of conflicting and contradictory decisions. This principle must be carefully delineated and demarcated in order to prevent hardship and actual injustice to parties. The doctrine of issue estoppels has the following requirements: (a) where a court in a final judgment on a cause has determined an issue involved in the cause of action in a certain way, (b) if the same issue is again involved, and the right to reclaim depends on that issue, the determination in (a) may
5 be advanced as an estoppels in a later action between the same parties, even if the later action is founded on a dissimilar cause of action. Issue estoppel is a rule of res judicata but is distinguished from the Roman- Dutch Law exception in that in issue estoppels the requirement that the same subject-matter or thing must be claimed in the subsequent action is not required. Issue estoppels has a two fold requirement. Issue estoppels has been applied in our law in decision of Provincial and Local Divisions. However, in the Kommissaris case supra the Court accepted that the expression issue estoppel had been in use in our law for a long time, and is a useful description of these cases which do not strictly conform to the threefold requirements of res judicata, because the same relief is not claimed on the same cause of action, but notwithstanding that the defence may be successful. Issue estoppels is also founded on public policy to avoid a multiplicity of actions in order inter alia to conserve the resources of the courts and litigants. There is a tension between a multiplicity of actions and the palpable realities of injustice. It must be determined on a case by case foundation without rigidity and the overriding or paramount consideration being overall fairness and equity. [12] Secondly, in the matter of Consol Ltd t/a Consol Glass v Twee Jonge Gezellen (Pty) Ltd and Another (2) 2005 (6) SA 23 (C), the following was said: The gist of the defence of res judicata is that the matter or question which is being raised by an adversary has previously been finally adjudicated upon in proceedings between the same parties, and cannot be raised again. A matter is res judicata when the prior judgment was given (1) with respect to the same subject matter, (2) based on the same ground, and (3) between the same parties. 5
6 In determining whether the prior judgment was based on the same ground, regard must be had not only to the express judicial declaration in the earlier proceedings, but also to point that should have been raised but were omitted in the earlier proceedings. Where a matter becomes subject to litigation in, and of adjudication by, a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. (Paragraphs [47], [50] and [52] at 45D-F, 46G/H-47B and 47E-F) H. [13] In Janse Van Rensburg and Others NNO v Myburgh & Others 2010 (1) SA 649 (SCA) in paragraph 27 Heher JA said the following:- The scope of the once and for all rule was said in the National B Sorghum case at 241D-E to require that all claims generated by the same cause of action be instituted in one action. As I have already found that the respective sections do not create the same cause of action, even in the extended sense, it is difficult to justify the applicability of the rule to the facts of these appeals. Murphy J* was, however, persuaded by a dictum from Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 ([ ] All ER Rep 378) at (at All ER) (and the full court in case No 18109/2005 agreed with him), as follows:- In trying this question I believe I state the rule of the court correctly when I say that, where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of
7 matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The plea or res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at that time [14] From all of the above quoted cases the general principle seems to be that the defence will apply where points which ought to have been raised in the initial application are now raised in the second application. [15] I agree with Mr Maree that this court had fully disposed of the substance of the issue of the exception that the defendant had brought in the first instance. The said issue of substance being the ground upon which the first exception was based namely:- the pleadings do not disclose a course of action. This court did so, having based its decision on the face of the same pleadings that are the subject matter of the second application. To entertain the second exception will in my view amount to recapitulation of the same thing in dispute in diverse action, which is not desirous. As seen from the quoted authorities above, the court requires the parties to litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not, except in special circumstances permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have from negligence, inadvertence, or even accidentally omitted part of 7
8 their case. I am of the view that the reason raised by Mr Hitge as to why the reasons as raised in the current application could not be dealt with in the first application does not amount to exceptional circumstances that will entitle this court to depart from the general principle as laid down in the authorities quoted above, [16] In coming to the conclusion that will become apparent later in this judgment, the following issues could not be overlooked and was also taken into consideration by this court. - The defendant filed his second exception way out of the time which is normally allowed in this kind of interlocutory applications in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court. Even on consideration of this reason alone, the hearing of the defendant s second exception cannot succeed. [17] Consequently, I am of the view that it will not be in the interest of justice that the defendant be allowed to open the same subject matter based on the same ground by way of a second application of an exception, albeit on different reasons. [18] Consequently the second exception application by the defendant is dismissed with costs. A M KGOELE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff : Smit Stanton Inc. 29 Warren Street, MAFIKENG 2745 Attorneys for Defendant : Van Rooyen Tlhapi Wessels Inc 9 Proctor Avenue Mafikeng, 2745 MAFIKENG
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.:1573/10 ERAVIN CONSTRUCTION CC. TWIN OAKS ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS (Pty) Ltd DEFENDANT
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.:1573/10 In the matter between: ERAVIN CONSTRUCTION CC PLAINTIFF and TWIN OAKS ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS (Pty) Ltd DEFENDANT CIVIL MATTER KGOELE J DATE OF HEARING
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 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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG. t/1{!n::u;~ t_ JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG ( 1) REPORT ABLE: 'f;e;:-/ NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YEfNO (3) REVISED. f ;l d.?jotjao.1 b t/1{!n::u;~
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL DIVISION, MAHIKENG SHAKE MULTI-SAVE SUPERMARKET CC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL DIVISION, MAHIKENG In the matter between: CASE NO: 413/12 SHAKE S MULTI-SAVE SUPERMARKET CC APPLICANT and HAFFEJEE, AHMED ABDUL HAY A I HAMPERS 1
More 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 informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 54/00 SIAS MOISE Plaintiff versus TRANSITIONAL LOCAL COUNCIL OF GREATER GERMISTON Defendant Delivered on : 21 September 2001 JUDGMENT KRIEGLER J: [1] On 4
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG CASE NO: 2080/2009 In the matter between:- P SMIT Applicant and CHRISNA VENTER Respondent DATE OF HEARING : 30 JANUARY 2014 DATE OF JUDGMENT
More informationVIBERT CREESE (as administrator of the Estate of James Creese, dec' d) Defendant. 2005: October 24 RULING
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 318 OF 2004 BETWEEN: DOUGLAS O'NEAL CREESE v Claimant VIBERT CREESE (as administrator
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: JR 2080/13 In the matter between: NDVHUHO NORMAN MUNZHELE FANISA LYDIA LAMOLA THOMAS JOHN NKUNA
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 HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) TRANSVAAL) (EDMS) BPK : PLAINTIFF
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO.:260/04 In the matter between: GROUP 10 HOUSING (WESTERN TRANSVAAL) (EDMS) BPK : PLAINTIFF AND DOMANN GROUP PROPERTIES (PTY)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
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 FREE STATE DIVISION,
More informationPOTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case No: 11711/2014 POTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff And NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE Defendant
More informationIN THE 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 informationPANDURANGA SIVALINGA DASS NO First Plaintiff. ASOKAN POOGESEN NAIDU NO Second Plaintiff. SANDAKRISARAN NAIDU NO Third Plaintiff
REPORTABLE IN THE KWAZULU NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: 12161/2008 In the matter between PANDURANGA SIVALINGA DASS NO First Plaintiff ASOKAN POOGESEN NAIDU NO Second Plaintiff
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2017 (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN MARIA MOGUEL AND Claimant/Counter-Defendant CHRISTINA MOGUEL Defendant/Counter-Claimant Before: The Honourable Madame Justice
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC UNDER the Defamation Act Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-001988 [2014] NZHC 2064 UNDER the Defamation Act 1992 BETWEEN AND RAZDAN RAFIQ Plaintiff THE SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case No.: 3048/2015 STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Plaintiff And JOROY 0004 CC t/a UBUNTU PROCUREM 1 st
More informationJUDGEMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT CAPE TOWN) CASE NO: C117/2001. In the matter between:
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT CAPE TOWN) CASE NO: C117/2001 In the matter between: NICOLAAS FRANSCOIS MAARTENS First Applicant WILLEM HENDRICK KOTZE Second Applicant HELEN LOUISA HENDRINA
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
In the matter between: THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 228/2013 Reportable ABSA BANK LIMITED APPELLANT and PETER JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG GINA MARI JANSE VAN RENSBURG FIRST
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2014/24817 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 13 May 2016.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter
More informationIN THE ELECTORAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE ELECTORAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: CASE NUMBER: 011/2016 EC NATIONAL FREEDOM PARTY (NFP) Applicant And THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION INKATHA FREEDOM PARTY
More informationDUDLEY CUPIDO Applicant. GLAXOSMITHKLINE SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COU R T OF SOUTH AFRICA H ELD AT CAPE TOWN CASE NO: C222/2004 In the matter between: DUDLEY CUPIDO Applicant and GLAXOSMITHKLINE SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT MURPHY, AJ 1. The
More informationM. NAIDOO Complainant. THE NEW REPUBLIC BANK RETIREMENT FUND (in liquidation) DETERMINATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 30M OF THE PENSION FUNDS ACT OF 1956
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR In the complaint between: CASE NO: PFA/KZN/2706/00/KM M. NAIDOO Complainant and THE NEW REPUBLIC BANK RETIREMENT FUND (in liquidation) Respondent DETERMINATION
More informationMEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS JUDGMENT
MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS FORUM : SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE : MALAN AJA CASE NO : 640/06 DATE : 28 NOVEMBER 2007 JUDGMENT Judgement: Malan AJA: [1] This is an appeal with leave of the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D. 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D. 2015 CLAIM NO.369 OF 2015 BETWEEN (BERNARD LESLIE ( (AND ( (RACHEL BATTLE (MICHAEL BATTLE (REGISTRAR OF LANDS ----- CLAIMANT DEFENDANTS INTERESTED PARTY BEFORE THE
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
1 IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NUMBER: 28722/2012 LET Sr. W H IC H E V E R 13 N G T APPLSC {:; REPORTABLE: YES/NO. In the matter between: SAVANA PROPERTY (PTY)
More informationNGATIA TRADING 103 CC t/a VERLEN MOTORS. BLUE POINTER 342 (PTY) LTD t/a C A Cars
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.: 568/07 In the matter between: NGATIA TRADING 103 CC t/a VERLEN MOTORS Plaintiff and BLUE POINTER 342 (PTY) LTD t/a C A Cars Defendant CIVIL MATTER KGOELE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No 195/97 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: GUARDIAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant and MATTHEW STEPHEN CHARLES SEARLE N O Respondent CORAM: VIVIER, HOWIE,
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA (NEASA)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Reportable JA02/2015 NATIONAL EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA (NEASA) Appellant And METAL AND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHASTENET ETS A TEISSEDRE BORDINET EXPORT. and. STANLEY LEONAIRE trading as LNJ TRADING FOOD DISTRIBUTORS
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. 566 of 1997 BETWEEN: CHASTENET ETS A TEISSEDRE BORDINET EXPORT and Claimant STANLEY LEONAIRE trading as LNJ TRADING FOOD DISTRIBUTORS Defendant Appearances:
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Heard at CAROLINA on 4 March 2002 CASE NUMBER: LCC 115/99 Before: Gildenhuys AJ Decided on: 15 March 2002 In the case between: COMBRINCK, H J Plaintiff and NHLAPO,
More informationIN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT PRETORIA CASE NO: PSES /14 NAT
IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT PRETORIA CASE NO: PSES 776-13/14 NAT In the matter between: SADTU Applicant and DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION Respondent RULING ON POINTS IN LIMINE 1.
More informationBefore: The Hon. Mr Justice Le Grange The Hon. Mr Binns-Ward The Hon. Ms Acting Justice Magona
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Appeal Case No: A371/2013 Trial Case No. 4673/2005 Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Le Grange The Hon. Mr Binns-Ward
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
Not reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 3173-12 & J 2349-11 In the matter between: GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH First Applicant And JOHN M SIAVHE N.O PUBLIC HEALTH
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 informationTopic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran )
WEEK 3 Topic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran 363-370) Res judicata is a type of plea made in court that precludes the relitgation of
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 38/04 RADIO PRETORIA Applicant versus THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
More informationREUBEN ITUMELENG TODI MEC FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: 751/2005 In the matter between:- REUBEN ITUMELENG TODI Plaintiff and MEC FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT First Defendant OF NORTH WEST RESPONSIBLE FOR HEALTH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case No. 1272/2015 MFANZILE VUSI HLOPHE Plaintiff And THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH MATHOBELA SIPHESIHLE XOLILE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 st Defendant
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 informationOFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
1 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 3394/2014 In the matter between: AIR TREATMENT ENGINEERING AND MAINTENANCE
More informationIN THE 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 informationMASILONYANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY LEJWELEPUTSWA DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Case number: 2770/2017
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MANONG & ASSOCIATES (PTY) LTD. EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE 1 st Respondent NATIONAL TREASURY
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 331/08 MANONG & ASSOCIATES (PTY) LTD Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF ROADS & TRANSPORT, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE 1 st Respondent NATIONAL
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED 08 SEPTEMBER 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Reportable Case no. 6802/2013 In the matter between: JOHAN DURR Excipient /Plaintiff and LE NOE NEELS BARNARDT CHARLES DICKINSON First
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION JOHANNESBURG) Case No: 30320/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION JOHANNESBURG) Case No: 30320/13 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 25 July 2014 EJ Francis In the matter between:
More 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 informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 41288/2014 DATE OF HEARING: 14 MAY 2015 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE... SIGNATURE
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held at CAPE TOWN on 13 September 1999 CASE NUMBER: LCC 151/98 before GILDENHUYS J In the case between: THE RICHTERSVELD COMMUNITY Plaintiffs and ALEXKOR LIMITED
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KRAMER WEIHMANN AND JOUBERT INC.
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case No: 3818/2011 KRAMER WEIHMANN AND JOUBERT INC. Plaintiff and SOUTH AFRICAN COMMERCIAL CATERING AND ALLIED WORKERS
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS 876/16 In the matter between: BOMBELA OPERATING COMPANY (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS 876/16 In the matter between: UNITED NATIONAL TRANSPORT UNION OBO MEMBERS Applicant And BOMBELA OPERATING COMPANY (PTY) LTD
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT. [1] This is a judgment on a point in limine raised by the respondent in this matter.
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN CASE NO: C 866/2008 In the matter between: STUART BURTON Applicant and TELKOM S A LIMITED Respondent JUDGMENT BHOOLA AJ: Introduction [1] This is a
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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 717/13 In the matter between: REAGAN JOHN ERNSTZEN Applicant and RELIANCE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) LTD t/a AVIS RENT A CAR NDWAMATO PHINIAS LAVHENGWA 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 (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL
More informationNORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG
NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO. 2554/2009 In the matter between: MALCOLM DESMOND BAILEY SIMON MONNAPULA GABORONE GIFT MPATLISANG LOBELO SAMUEL OTLA MANGANYI GWENDOLINE MOSETSANA MOTHIBA JOSEPH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Reportable: YES / NO Circulate to Judges: YES / NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG In the
More informationJUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL. [1] In the trial which lasted for two (2) days, applicant (plaintiff a quo) sued
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH Case no: 2656/2009 Date heard: 24.07.2012 Date delivered: 07.08.2012 In the matter between: ADUM TREVOR PLUMRIDGE Applicant / Plaintiff
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT. L.R. MAMBA AND ASSOCIATES And MPHETSENI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT In the matter between: Civil Case 649/12 L.R. MAMBA AND ASSOCIATES And MPHETSENI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Plaintiff Defendant Neutral citation: L.M. Mamba and
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 informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. L C FOURIE t/a LC FOURIE BOERDERY
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case No. : 174/2011 L C FOURIE t/a LC FOURIE BOERDERY Plaintiff and JOHANNES CHRISTIAAN KOTZé N.O. GRAHAM CHRISTIAAN
More informationIN THE COURT FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS (FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CIPLA MEDPRO (PTY) LTD H LUNDBECK A/S LUNDBECK SA (PTY) LTD
IN THE COURT FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS (FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Date: 2010-05-24 In the matter between: Case Number: 89/4476 CIPLA MEDPRO (PTY) LTD Applicant and H LUNDBECK A/S LUNDBECK
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO.: 15830/13 (1) (2) (3) REPORTABLE: YES / NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO REVISED. In the matter between: LERATO AND MOLOKO EVENTS
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND
SAINT LUCIA THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. 0583/1998 BETWEEN BERTHA FRANCIS Claimant AND FIRST CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL BANK (B DOS) LTD. formerly CIBC Caribbean
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions)
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 754/2012 In the matter between: SOLENTA AVIATION (PTY) LTD Appellant and AVIATION @ WORK (PTY) LIMITED Respondent Neutral citation:
More 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C OF A (CIV) NO.18/2016 LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C OF A (CIV) NO.18/2016 In the matter between:- LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED APPELLANT and TSEKISO POULO RESPONDENT CORAM: FARLAM,
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: 4512/14. Date heard: 04 December 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: 4512/14 Date heard: 04 December 2014 Judgment Delivered: 11 December 2014 In the matter between: SIBUYA GAME RESERVE & LODGE
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG MARTHINUS JOHANNES LAUFS DATE OF HEARING : 28 OCTOBER 2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01 DECEMBER 2016
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG In the matter between: CASE NO:
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KRAMER WEIHMANN & JOUBERT INC
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the application between:- KRAMER WEIHMANN & JOUBERT INC Application No: 3818/2011 Plaintiff and SOUTH AFRICAN COMERCIAL CATERING AND ALLIED
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAHIKENG CASE NO.: M66/2016 In the matter between:
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAHIKENG CASE NO.: M66/2016 In the matter between: ABRAHAM PAULUS BISSCHOFF ABRAHAM PAULUS BISSCHOFF (in his capacity as representative of the trustee of the Paul Bisschoff
More informationIN THE COMPETITION APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. THE COMPETITION COMMISSION Appellant
IN THE COMPETITION APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: 31/CAC/Sep03 In the matter between: THE COMPETITION COMMISSION Appellant and DISTILLERS CORPORATION (SA) LIMITED STELLENBOSCH FARMERS WINERY GROUP
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) CASE NO: 2159/97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) CASE NO: 2159/97 In the matter between: LESLIE NEIL SACKSTEIN N.O. FLORIS JOHANNES LORDAN N.O FIRST PLAINTIFF SECOND PLAINTIFF and THE DIRECTOR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) ABSA 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 (GAUTENG DIVISION,
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY] JUDGMENT ON LEAVE TO APPEAL Reportable: YES / NO Circulate to Judges: YES / NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO CASE NR : 1322/2012
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 10083/2012 (1) REPORTABLE: Yes (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No (3) REVISED... DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter between MONYETLA
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 366/2013 Reportable In the matter between: ROYAL SECHABA HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 366/2013 Reportable In the matter between: ROYAL SECHABA HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD Appellant and GRANT WILLIAM COOTE DANIEL ELARDUS ENGELBRECHT First
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley)
More informationNew Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd. JUDGMENT Delivered on: 16 November [1] This is an application lodged by first and second respondent
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between Case No: 2602/11 New Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd Applicant and Chicks Scrap Metal (Pty) Ltd Robert Jacques Thomas
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN) Appeal no. A233/2014 In the matter between: BLUE CHIP 2 (PTY) LTD t/a BLUE CHIP 49 Appellant and CEDRIC DEAN RYNEVELDT & 26 OTHERS
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CRONIMET CHROME PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 851/12 Not reportable In the matter between: CRONIMET CHROME MINING SA (PTY) LTD FIRST APPELLANT CRONIMET CHROME SA (PTY) LTD SECOND APPELLANT
More informationGRAPHLINK INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD versus PUZEY AND PAYNE (PVT) LTD. HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE TAGU J HARARE, 15 January & 17 February 2016.
1 GRAPHLINK INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD versus PUZEY AND PAYNE (PVT) LTD HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE TAGU J HARARE, 15 January & 17 February 2016 Civil trial N.B. Munyuru, for plaintiff T. Zhuwarara, for defendant
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 informationTHANDEKILE NELSON SABISA LAWRENCE NZIMENI MAMBILA RULING IN TERMS OF RULE 39 (11)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA Case no. 2889/2016 Date heard: 13/06/18 Date delivered: 31/07/18 Reportable In the matter between: THANDEKILE NELSON SABISA LAWRENCE
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN)
Page 1 of 17 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) In the matter between INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL AND ALLIED TRADE UNION JL ALBERTS JA EHRICH First Applicant Second Applicant Third Applicant
More informationCourt of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie*
Court of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie* In October 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its much anticipated decision in
More informationGUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4490/2015 DATE HEARD: 02/03/2017 DATE DELIVERED: 30/03/2017 In the matter between GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY)
More informationNORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG
NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO. 2278/2010 In the matter between: MPHO MOSES NTSIMANE PLAINTIFF and GIZANI WILSON MALULEKA 1 ST DEFENDANT SYDWELL MACHVELE 2 ND DEFENDANT CIVIL JUDGMENT GUTTA J.
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 informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL, HELD AT PRETORIA
national consumer tribunal IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL, HELD AT PRETORIA Case No.: NCT/09/2008/57(1) (P) In the matter between SHOSHOLOZA FINANCE CC Applicant And NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR Respondent
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION CASE NO: 2014/14425
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION CASE NO: 2014/14425 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED
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 informationKARL FEIGNER Plaintiff/Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL, DURBAN CASE: 438/2010 In the matter between: KARL FEIGNER Plaintiff/Respondent vs THE BODY CORPORATE First Defendant/Applicant OF THE LIGHTHOUSE MALL JUDGMENT
More informationN[...] E[...] N[...] obo T[...]...PLAINTIFF DR E M SEKWABE...1 ST DEFENDANT. THE MEDICAL MANAGER OF LIFE ST. DOMINICS...2 nd DEFENDANT 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 EASTERN CAPE DIVISION
More information