It?.. 't?.!~e/7. \0 \ ':;) \ d-0,1 2ND DEFENDANT 3RD DEFENDANT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE N0.
|
|
- Ophelia Green
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 DAE /.._ GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA In the matter between: CASE N0.:29756/2015 EAGLE STEEL CONSTRUCTION PROPRIETARY LIMITED t/a EAGLESTRUCT INTERNATION (REGISTRATION NUMBER: 1986/002815/07) PLAINTIFF and GLEN LEA PROPERTY INVESTMENTS CC (IN LIQUIDATION) ("GLEN LEA") (REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2005/128510/23) AVIWE NTANDAZO NDYAMARA N.O JOHANNES ZACHARIAS HUMAN N.0 RICHARD APRIL MASUKU NEDBANK LIMITED MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA 1 ST DEFENDANT 2ND DEFENDANT 3RD DEFENDANT 4TH DEFENDANT 5TH DEFENDENT 6 TH DEFENDANT Coram: HUGHES J JUDGMENT
2 1 HUGHES J [1] In this opposed application the plaintiff in the action is the respondent, and the defendants are the applicants. For easy reference the parties will be referred to as cited in the action. [2] On the 22 February 2016 Fabricius J presiding over an interlocutory application of an exception raised by the defendant's granted a consent orders as is set out below: "1. The exception raised by the First to Fourth Excipient is upheld; 2. The exception raised by the Fifth Excipient is upheld; 3. The Plaintiff's particulars of claim are struck out; 4. The Plaintiff is afforded an opportunity of filing the required notice to amend its particulars of claim within twenty days of granting this order; 5. Leave is granted to the excipients to apply for the dismissal of the Plaintiff's action should the Plaintiff not so ament its particulars of claim; 6. The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the First to Fourth Excipients' exception; 7. The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the Fifth Excipient's exception; 8. The costs are to include the costs of senior counsel." [3] In terms of the court order the defendants applied for the dismissal of the plaintiff's action, and in response thereto, the plaintiff's launched a counter application for condonation and leave to amend their particulars of claim. It is these three applications I am called upon to adjudicate [4] The sequence of events pertinent to these applications is set out hereafter.
3 2 [5] On the 23 March 2016, after the order of Fabricius J of 22 February 2016, the plaintiff served a notice to amend titled "Plaintiff's Notice of Amendment". Incidentally, this was done on the last day, being the twentieth day in terms of paragraph 4 of the order. [6] This notice to amend sought to delete paragraph 8, 9. 7, 15, 16, 20 and replacing them. An addition was also made to paragraph 23 and Prayers 1,2,3,4 and 5 were also deleted and replaced. I do not intend to set out the paragraphs sought to be amended and replaced. I propose to deal with the relevant paragraphs when I deal with the objections raised by the defendants further on in the judgement. [7] On 4 April 2016 the defendants served their notice of objection to the amendments sought by the plaintiff. The crux of the objection was that the plaintiff had failed to comply with Section 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court in addition such amendment still rendered the pleadings of the plaintiff vague and embarrassing. [8] An application for leave to amend was launched by the plaintiff on 28 April This was not coupled with a condonation application; the latter was only sought by way of a notice on motion dated 31 May 2016 which was served on the defendants on 1 June [9] Correspondence which forms part of the annexures filed indicate that the plaintiff, by way of an dated 5 April 2016, was advised that an objection had been filed by the defendants. Further, that the plaintiff was granted up until 8 April 2016 to serve their notice for leave to amendment.
4 3 [1 O] The application for the dismissal of the plaintiff's action was launched on 26 April The defendant's alleged that by then the plaintiff's notice to amend had lapsed as the cut-off date was 18 April Consequently, both applications were opposed and thus removed from the unopposed roll on 6 June 2016 and accordingly placed on the opposed roll. [11] The entire argument in dealing with this specific application hinges upon an interpretation of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order of Fabricius J. [12] The defendant's case is that the plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to file its notice to amend within twenty days from the granting of the order, paragraph 4 of the order. However, in this instance, they filed an intention to amend. The defendant's contend that the plaintiff having failed to amend its particulars as was required in terms of paragraphs 4 and 5 read together, this resulted in non-compliance with rule 28(4) and 28(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court. [13] As no application to amend was launched by 18 April 2016, the defendant's argue that in terms of the Rules of Court, the period to file their notice to amend had lapsed. [14] On the other hand, the plaintiff argues, that on a reading of paragraph 5 of the order, it had complied with paragraph 4 timeously, having filed a notice of intention to amend, the defendants were no longer entitled to apply for a dismissal of their action. [15] The plaintiff's attorney in an affidavit for condonation and leave to amend explains that after filing the notice of its intention to amend, he had instructed his correspondent attorney, on March 2016, to file the amended papers in the absence of any opposition or bring an application for leave to amend in the event of
5 4 an objection. He then proceeded to diarise the matter for 20 April 2016, however, on 4 April 2016 an objection was filed by the defendant's. On receipt of the objection he ed correspondence to the counsel on brief stating "They are at it again". [16] The correspondence that followed was to the correspondent attorney of the plaintiff which was transmitted on 21 April 2016, where he requested the leave to amend application be enrolled as soon as possible. During that specific period the correspondent attorney's state that they were experiencing difficulties with their ADSL line and thus the application for leave to amend could only be transmitted on 29 April 2016 to the plaintiff's attorney for consideration. [17] The plaintiff goes on to state that, in any event, it launched an application for condonation for the late filing of its application for leave to amend and as such the condonation application should succeed, as a reasonable explanation had been advanced by the plaintiff's attorney. It was further clear from the explanation that there was no wilful default on the part of the attorney. [18] It is trite that discretion I have to grant condonation is wide and should be exercised after proper consideration of all the relevant circumstances and facts. The plaintiff ought to provide a reasonable explanation which bears out the plaintiff's bone tides and indicates that it has a prime facie claim with prospects of success. See Chetty v Law Society, Transvaal 1985 (2) SA 756 (A) at F; Colyn v Tiger Food Industries LTD tla Meadow Feed Mills (Cape) 2003 (6) SA 1 at 9E-10B. [19] The plaintiff argues that the delay is only but a week, and as such the defendant's cannot suggest that they have been prejudiced by such a delay, which can be cured by payment of their wasted costs occasioned. In my view this is not the correct approach or attitude to be adopted by the plaintiff. Be that as it may, when I apply the principles as set out above, I find that a reasonable explanation has been advanced. The explanation advanced indicates that an administrative glitch appears
6 5 to have emerged on the part of the correspondent attorneys and the plaintiff's instructing attorney. [20] Why should the plaintiff be penalised for this? By the same token a litigant has to stand or fall with the attorney chosen to represent one. Even in the face of the aforesaid, of importance, is the fact that the conduct of both attorneys in their failure to file the notice for leave to amend, timeously, was not wilful. From the outset, I might add, by virtue of the plaintiff filing its intention to amend, the plaintiff, in my view, clearly intended to comply with the court order. [21] In circumstances condonation 1s duly granted. I will return to the issue of wasted costs later in the judgment. [22] In terms of Rule 28 (1) of the Uniform Rules of Court a party shall notify its opposing party of its intention to amend and provide particulars of such amendment. In the circumstances before me I find that there was compliance with this provision. What was lacking was the lodging of the application for leave to amend after the objection to the amendment was filed by the defendants, Rule 28(4 ). [23] The principal objective of an amendment is to ventilate the dispute between the parties and as such the primary considerations of a presiding officer when exercising his/her discretion to grant or refuse an amendment, is whether there would be prejudice and an injustice caused to the opponent if the amendment is allowed. See Rosner v Lydia Swanepoe/ Trust 1998 (2) SA 123 (VV,) at 1270-G where Goldstone J quoted the following passage: "8. In Oevonia Shipping Ltd v MV Luis (Yeoman Shipping Co Ltd Intervening) 1994 (2) SA 363 (C) at 369F-I Rose Innes J said the following: "The general rule is that an amendment of a notice of motion, as in the case of a summons or pleading in an action, will always be allowed unless the application to amend is ma/a fide or unless the amendment would cause an injustice or prejudice to the other side which cannot be
7 6 compensated by an order for costs or, in other words, unless the parties can riot be put back for the purposes of justice in the same position as they were when the notice of motion which it is sought to amend was filed... A material amendment such as the alteration or correction of the name of the applicant, or the substitution of a new applicant, should in my view usually be granted subject to the considerations mentioned of prejudice to the respondent... The risk of prejudice will usually be less in the case where the correct applicant has been incorrectly named and the amendment is sought to correct the misnomer than in the case where it is sought to substitute a different applicant. The criterion in both cases, however, is prejudice which cannot be remedied by an order as to costs and there is no difference in principle between the two cases."' [24] In the circumstances of this case, I disagree with defendant's contention that the amendment or time period allowed to bring about the amendment had lapsed, and as such, the defendants could seek a dismissal of the plaintiff's action. [25] From my reading of the order, paragraph 4 provides for that which is required in terms of Rule 28 (1). If I examine paragraph 5, following on paragraph 4, to me, should the plaintiff not comply with paragraph 4, then and only then, would the defendant's be able to seek the dismissal of the plaintiff's action. If there is compliance with paragraph 4, it stands to reason, that the provisions of Rule 28, governing amendments of pleadings kicks in. It is trite that an amendment can be sought any time before judgment. In casu, the defendant cannot seek the dismissal of the plaintiff's action, based on the notion that they had failed to amend their particulars of claim, as the plaintiff had complied with paragraph 4 of the order. [26] The amendments sought were met with objection that they still rendered the particulars of claim vague and embarrassing. It is commonplace that material facts relied upon for a conclusion to be drawn by the courts in ones favour must be pleaded with particularity, clearly and concisely. See Trope and others v South African Reserve Bank 1993 (3) SA 264 (AD) at [21]. [27] The applicable rule to establish if indeed that is the case is Rule 18(4):
8 7 "Every pleading shall contain a clear and concise statement of the material facts upon which the pleader relies for his claim, defence or answer to any pleading, as the case may be, with sufficient particularity to enable the opposite party to reply thereto." [28] The plaintiff contends that the amendments sought cures a majority of the issues raised in the initial exception which coursed the plaintiff's particulars of claim to be struck out. It further contends, that it has illustrated, by way of the amendments sought, that its claim is founded on an enrichment. The parties by way of a written agreement had initially agreed that the plaintiff would conduct repairs to the first defendant's property totalling square meters and later, orally changed the agreement by increasing the area to be repaired to square meters. This resulted in an additional costs of R having been incurred by the plaintiff. [29] The defendant's take issue with the fact that the amendment does not spell out what the additional work was and when was it in fact conducted. Further, the annexure attached to verify the amount claimed, as the costs incurred by the plaintiff, being "POC3", was a payment certificate and as such it could not purport to be actual costs incurred by the plaintiff. One of the reasons advanced is that the payment certificate was claimable in terms of the written agreement and not the oral agreement. In reply the plaintiff states that the amount reflects what the first defendant was actually enriched by and as such was a material fact. [30] The particularity pleaded is dependent on the facts of each case. If one relies on a fact then, placing reliance thereupon, needs to be proven at trial in order to succeed with one's claim. It is not for the plaintiff to anticipate every defence to be raised by the defendant, thus cluttering the pleadings with evidence and opinions, in order to cover all ones bases. It is for the defendant to raise these defences in its
9 8 plea and for the plaintiff to provide material facts. See Jowell v Bramwell-Jones and others 1998 (1) SA 836 (WLD) at [31] One is required to just plead a summary of the material facts which simply outlines the case to be met, that is to be developed in full force at trial. In my view, the amendments sought by plaintiff, in this instance, does exactly that and as such is sufficiently particular for the defendant's to plead. [32] It stands to reason that the application for the dismissal of the plaintiff's action must fail and leave to amend the particulars of claim is granted. Costs [33] The plaintiff by filing its application for condonation sought an indulgence and as such should pay the wasted costs occasion by the defendant's on a party and party scale. Such cost to include the employment of senior counsel. [34] As regards the costs for the application to dismiss and the application for leave to appeal, I am of the view that they are intricately related and as such each party is ordered to pay their own costs. [35] Consequently I make the following order: 1. The plaintiff's application for condonation is granted and the plaintiff is ordered to pay the wasted costs of the defendants on a party and party scale. Such costs to include the employment of senior counsel; 2. The application to dismiss the plaintiff's action is dismissed with each party ordered to pay their own costs; 3. The application for leave to amend the plaintiffs particulars of claim as set out in the "Plaintiff's Notice of Amendment" dated 22 March 2016 is granted with each party to pay their own costs.
10 9 the High Court Gauteng <. Division, Pretoria Appearances: For the Applicant: D M Leathern SC Instructed by: David Kotzen Attorneys For the Defendant: E Rudolph Instructed by: Van Rensburg Koen & Baloyi Attorney Date heard: 01 February 2017 Date delivered: 10 February 2017
IN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN R P JANSEN VAN VUUREN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- R P JANSEN VAN VUUREN Case No: 703/2012 Plaintiff and H C REINECKE Defendant JUDGMENT BY: VAN DER MERWE, J HEARD
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 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 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 HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NROTH GAUTENG HIGH CURT, PRETORIA) ^
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NROTH GAUTENG HIGH CURT, PRETORIA) ^ Jo^^ajf Case No: 24265/01 In the matter between: CLIPSAL SOUTh AppjPA /PTV) I IMITFn D.ICANT DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICA (FORMERLY
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NUMBER: 30726/2009 DATE: 26 SEPTEMBER 2014 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES In the matter between:
More 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
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: Appeal number: A1/2016
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 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 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 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 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 (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
J/ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: 'IW/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: '111!6/NO :~TE: REVISED... ~... L~...1..~.?.~.E
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO: 03/03539 DATE:26/10/2011 In the matter between: TECMED (PTY) LIMITED MILFORD, MICHAEL VOI HARRY BEGERE, WERNER HURWITZ,
More informationHIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) In the matter between: CASE NO: 38645/2015 Not reportable Not of interest to other Judges CRIMSON KING PROPERTIES 21 (PTY) LTD Applicant and JOHN
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA BOLLORE AFRICA LOGISTICS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD BOLLORE TRADING AND INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CASE NO: CT004AUG2017 BOLLORE AFRICA LOGISTICS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Applicant (Registration Number: 2012/013416/07) and
More 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 information27626/13-MLS 1 JUDGMENT (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
27626/13-MLS 1 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: 27626/13 DATE: 2014-03-10 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: No (2) OF INTEREST
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 informationMATTHEUS GERHARDUS KRUGER
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: MATTHEUS GERHARDUS KRUGER
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 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 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 information10 -~e,~v\qw..\-~\... g
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) (I) REPORTABLE: S I NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER J (3) REVISED. 10 -~e,~v\qw..\-~\... g \... DATE CASE NO: 96735/2016 In the matter between:
More informationzo/o IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) Case number 76888/2010 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE 1) REPORTABLE: YE&/NO. (2! OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Y&/NO. (3) REVISED. Case number 76888/2010
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 14231/14 In the matter between: PETER McHENDRY APPLICANT and WYNAND LOUW GREEFF FIRST RESPONDENT RENSCHE GREEFF SECOND RESPONDENT
More information(EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 812/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 812/2012 In the matter between: CLIMAX CONCRETE PRODUCTS CC t/a CLIMAX CONCRETE PRODUCTS CC Registration Number CK 1985/014313/23
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO:83409/2015 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... DATE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 339/09 MEC FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY Appellant (EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE) and TEMBA MTOKWANA Respondent Neutral citation: 2010) CORAM: MEC v Mtokwana
More informationJUDGMENT THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 07897/2016. In the matter between: SAPOR RENTALS (PTY) LIMITED
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 07897/2016 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 23 February 2017.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter
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 KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 2813/2010 In the matter between: HENDRIK JOHANNES VAN JAARSVELD HENDRIK JOHANNES VAN JAARSVELD N.O EMMERENTIA FREDERIKA
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY SA LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JR 438/11 In the matter between: ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY SA LTD Applicant and COMMISSIONER J S K NKOSI N.O. First Respondent COMMISSION
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 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 information[1] The above matter came before me on 11 April 2017 by way of urgency.
CASE NO: 20371/2017 (1) (2) (3) REPORT ABLE: YES / NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO REVISED. DATE SIGNATURE In the matter between: THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN PROVINCES Applicant and SIFELANE
More informationmmz wmchevh m mi APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE ^/NO (2) OS? intdiiat io OrHIR JUDGES ^B /NO : and «e& ^ ^7 ^
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO. 27048/03 in the matter between ANNE ELIZABETH MARY PRATT Applicant mmz wmchevh m mi APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE ^/NO (2) OS?
More information[1] These are interlocutory proceedings. The factual matrix that gave rise to the present application are briefly as follows:
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: MUTUAL & FEDERAL INSURANCE
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA M AND K ACCOUNTING AND TAX CONSULTANTS
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number: 2197/2011 In the matter between:- M AND K ACCOUNTING AND TAX CONSULTANTS Applicant and CENTLEC (PTY) LTD Respondent CORAM: SNELLENBURG,
More 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 information(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: ES/ NO [lf};jj_ JUDGMENT. 1 SSG Security Solutions (Pty) Limited (SSG) and the second
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 67027/17 In the matter between: SSG SECURITY SOLUTIONS (PTY) LIMITED Applicant (1) REPORTABLE: ES/ NO and (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN. EUGENE NEL N.O. First Plaintiff. JUSTI STROH N.O. Third Plaintiff O R D E R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN In the matter between: CASE NO: 11602/14 EUGENE NEL N.O. First Plaintiff KURT ROBERT KNOOP N.O. Second Plaintiff JUSTI STROH N.O.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 30037/2015 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
More 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 (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 information1. This is a ruling on an application for substitution of a party for an existing party in
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number J 1643/98 In the matter between JAN HENDRIK WHEELER R S MAHASHA FIRST APPLICANT SECOND APPLICANT And J C J VAN RENSBURG MANIE STEYN
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 informationABSA BANK LIMITED Plaintiff AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No.: 8850/2011 In the matter between: ABSA BANK LIMITED Plaintiff and ROBERT DOUGLAS MARSHALL GAVIN JOHN WHITEFORD N.O. GLORIA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Northern Cape Division, Kimberley)
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division, Kimberley) Saakno
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Reportable: YES / NO Circulate to Judges: YES / NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG In the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 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 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN CORNELIS ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES N.O.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case no: 16920/2016 THE HABITAT COUNCIL Applicant v THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN CORNELIS ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES N.O. MICHAEL ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES
More informationFederal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Commencement: 1st May 2000 In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and all powers
More informationBERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationNUSUN DEVELOPMENT (PTY) LTD First Respondent HSU-LIEH HO: Manager-Nusun Second Respondent
VRYSTAAT HOË HOF, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIEK VAN SUID AFRIKA Case Number: 4882/2011 In the matter between:- BOGATSU DAVID RAMOLIBE First Applicant MARIA RAMOLIBE Second Applicant and NUSUN DEVELOPMENT (PTY)
More informationBIKEBUDDI INTERNATIONAL LTD. BIKEBUDI HOLDINGS (PTY) LIMITED Respondent J U D G M E N T
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: CASE NO: 3726/2011 Date Heard: 9 December 2011 Date Delivered: 13 December 2011 BIKEBUDDI INTERNATIONAL LTD Applicant
More informationGUMA AND THREE OTHERS JUDGEMENT. [1] This is an application for rescission of a judgement given by. August In terms of the judgement the
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. J1281/98 In the matter between: SIZABANTU ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION APPLICANT and GUMA AND THREE OTHERS RESPONDENTS JUDGEMENT SEADY A J [1]
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) ( l) REPORTABLE: ' " 1GID) (2) OF INTER,ESJ,TO OTHER JUDGES: (3) REVISEl,V
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case Number: 68492/2013 ~ /,3 JI i ( l) REPORTABLE: ' " 1GID) (2) OF INTER,ESJ,TO OTHER JUDGES: Y~_@ ro~.l Q:3..~.a r~ (3) REVISEl,V DAT~
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationPetroleum Products and Energy Act 13 of 1990 section 4A(2)(b)
MADE IN TERMS OF section 4A(2) Regulations for Arbitration Procedures under the Petroleum Products and Energy Act, 1990 Government Notice 93 of 2003 (GG 2970) came into force on date of publication: 29
More informationIN THE 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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT BELLS BANK NUMBER ONE (PTY) LTD
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: C144/08 In the matter between: BELLS BANK NUMBER ONE (PTY) LTD Applicant and THE NATIONAL UNION OF MINE WORKERS
More informationSOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2010/50597 DATE:12/08/2011 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... DATE SIGNATURE In
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (PRETORIA) REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. ASMA'OU BOUBA Plaintiff
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (PRETORIA) REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA DELETE W H I C H E V E R IS NOT APPLICABLE Case No: 21046/2007 Date heard: 23 and 24/04/2012 Date of judgment: 24/04/2012 In the matter
More informationAVENG (AFRICA) LIMITED J U D G M E N T. summons. On 17 June 2009 the plaintiff issued summons against the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO. 1613/09 In the matter between: AVENG (AFRICA) LIMITED Plaintiff and VARICOR SIX (PTY) LIMITED t/a SIGMA CONSULTING Defendant 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 HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) JUDGEMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) CASE NO: 57639/2007 INYANGA TRADING 444 (PTY) LTD APPLICANT And R&T ONTWIKKELAARS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT MAVUNDLA J:. [1]
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NUMBER: 20138/2011 In the matter between MAGDELENA MARIA DE WET UITBLINK OPVOEDINGKUNDIGE DIENSTE CC t/a SKILLS SOLUTIONS SA
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable In the matter between: Case no: 288/2017 OCEAN ECHO PROPERTIES 327 CC FIRST APPELLANT ANGELO GIANNAROS SECOND APPELLANT and OLD MUTUAL LIFE
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 31498/2017 Not reportable In the matter between: SPHYNX TRADING CC PAVLOS KYRIACOU Not of interest to other
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Binns-Ward Hearing: 9 February 2017 Judgment: 15 February 2017 Case No. 162/2016
More informationCAYMAN ISLANDS. Supplement No. 1 published with Extraordinary Gazette No. 5 of 22nd January, COURT OF APPEAL LAW.
CAYMAN ISLANDS Supplement No. 1 published with Extraordinary Gazette No. 5 of 22nd January, 2014. COURT OF APPEAL LAW (2011 Revision) COURT OF APPEAL RULES (2014 Revision) Revised under the authority of
More informationPART 2 MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS
5. Application of Part 2 This Part applies PART 2 MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS to matrimonial proceedings, and for specifying the procedure for complying with the requirements of section 25 of the Act (restriction
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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA DELETE WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE [1] REPORTABLE: YES / NO [2] OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO [3] REVISED DATE SIGNATURE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Plaintiff. Defendant
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE
More informationSOUTH AFRICA Trade Marks regulations Government Notice R578 of 21 April 1995 as amended by Government Notice R1180 of 1 December 2006
SOUTH AFRICA Trade Marks regulations Government Notice R578 of 21 April 1995 as amended by Government Notice R1180 of 1 December 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Definitions 1A. ELECTRONIC SERVICES 2. Fees 3.
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Not Reportable Case no: 20714/14 LORRAINE DU PREEZ APPELLANT and TORNEL PROPS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Du Preez
More information. o..~t:j.\.1: CASE NO: 67452/2015. In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED t/a WESBANK. Applicant. and LUVHOMBA LEGAL AXE CC.
(1) REPORTABLE: 't$l@ (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Y (3). o..~t:j.\.1: REVISED.. CASE NO: 67452/2015 In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED t/a WESBANK Applicant and LUVHOMBA LEGAL AXE CC Respondent
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA '~ :: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA '~ :: ~ ',. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO. : 2016/75684 (1) (2) (3) \, ~ REPORTABLE: NO O F INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO VISED. Q~J9':\:~I
More informationCIVIL PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR THE REGIONAL COURTS IN SOUTH AFRICA
FOR THE REGIONAL COURTS IN SOUTH AFRICA Page 1 INTRODUCTION The Civil Practice Directives deal essentially with the daily functioning of the courts, court- and case-flow management and intend to introduce
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: MTHATHA CASE NO: 2248/12. Heard on: 02/09/13. Delivered on: 26/09/13 REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: MTHATHA CASE NO: 2248/12 Heard on: 02/09/13 Delivered on: 26/09/13 REPORTABLE In the matter between: SIWAPHIWE MAGWENTSHU Plaintiff and MINISTER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) UNREPORTABLE CASE NO: A221/06 DATE: 21/05/2007 THE STATE APPELLANT V OSCAR NZIMANDE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R D CLAASSEN J: 1 This is an appeal
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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable CASE NO: 82/2015 In the matter between: TRUSTCO GROUP INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and VODACOM (PTY) LTD THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS FIRST
More informationCivil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number:
1 Civil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number: 883833 QUESTION 1: M issues summons against N for damages as a result of breach
More informationREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA, MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK RULING ON SPECIAL PLEA ARANDIS LUBRICATION SERVICES CC
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA NOT REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA, MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK RULING ON SPECIAL PLEA CASE NO. I 3616 /2014 In the matter between: ARANDIS LUBRICATION SERVICES CC PLAINTIFF And ERONGO
More informationIN THE IDGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (! ) REPORTABLE: ~ / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:~ I NO (3) REVISED: YES / NO IN THE IDGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO.: 45726/2017 DATE In the
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL AUTHORITIES PENSION FUND
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 994/2013 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL AUTHORITIES PENSION FUND APPELLANT and MSUNDUZI MUNICIPALITY RESPONDENT Neutral
More informationThe Competition Commission of South Africa. Members of United South African Second and further Respondents DECISION ON EXCEPTION APPLICATIONS
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 04/CR/Jan02 In the matter between: The Competition Commission of South Africa Applicant and Anglo American Medical Scheme Engen Medical Fund Intervening
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO.: 13342/2015 JEEVAN S PROPERTY INVESTMENT (PTY) LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO.: 13342/2015 In the matter between: JEEVAN S PROPERTY INVESTMENT (PTY) LIMITED APPLICANT and REUNION CASH AND CARRY
More information