IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT
|
|
- Jason Watts
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT In the matter between: Civil Case No.06/2015 SWAZILAND REVENUE AUTHORITY Applicant And IMPUNZI WHOLESALERS (PTY) LTD. Respondent Neutral citation: Swaziland Revenue Authority vs. Impunzi Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd. (06/2015) [2015] [SZHC 06] (9 th December 2015) Coram: DR. B.J. ODOKI JA, M.D. MAMBA AJA, N.J. HLOPHE AJA, R.C. CLOETE AJA, M.J. MANZINI AJA. Heard: 18 th November 2015 Delivered: 9 th December
2 SUMMARY Civil Procedure Application for Review of decision of Supreme Court under Section 148 (2) of the Constitution Principles and conditions for review Original Application brought before High Court challenging decision of the Commissioner of Customs and Excise Act Failure to exhaust local remedies by appealing to the Minister High Court dismissing the application on points in-limine, Whether jurisdiction of the High Court ousted Whether Supreme Court correct to determine the application on merits when the trial court had not done so Whether grounds exist for reviewing the Supreme Court judgment Exceptional circumstances proved to justify the review and set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court Case remitted back to the High Court to determine the original application on the merits. JUDGMENT DR. B.J. ODOKI J.A. [1] This is an application by Swaziland Revenue Authority, the Applicant, to review and set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 13 th March The Application seeks an order reinstating the High Court judgment dated 6 February 2015 or in the alternative that the application that was served before the High Court be referred to the Minister of Finance for adjudication, as an appeal from the decision of 2
3 the Commissioner of Customs and Excise (The Commissioner) and that the Minister makes a decision thereon within the time specified by this court. [2] The brief background to this application is as follows. The Respondent (Impunzi Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd.) commenced with the importation of quilts in January These are decorative covers for beds made of two layers with soft material between them. The Respondent concluded that the quilts were subject to classification in accordance with the Customs and Excise Tariff Book under code HS [3] The Respondent attributed a value of US$1.50 per unit for purpose of customs duty which was the actual price of a quilt when purchased from its suppliers in China. The Customs and Excise Act is premised on a system of self-accounting and self-assessment since there exists no alternative method by which the Commissioner can keep track of goods imported that might result in customs duty being payable. [4] The Applicant, acting through the Commissioner, being the specific body charged with the administration of customs matters in Swaziland, at first took no issue with the price which was based on the transaction value of 3
4 the quilts as determined by section 65 (1) read with section 66 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act. [5] In June 2014 in exercise of its powers under section 108 of the Customs and Excise Act, the Applicant held a consignment of quilts imported by the Respondent under embargo at the Matsapha Inland Container Depot. The Applicant took the view that the quilts have to be cleared under HS6301 of Chapter 9 of the Harmonized Customs Tariff at a value of US$14.33 per unit. [6] According to the Respondent, no explanation was forthcoming as to how this was determined when the quilts were sold to the Respondent by its Chinese supplier at US$1.50 per unit, being the benchmark in terms of section 66 (1), which stipulates that the transaction value of any goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for goods when sold for export to Swaziland, but subject to adjustment in terms of section 67. [7] The Respondent addressed correspondence to the Applicant on 23 June 2014, to advise that the quilts were not liable to be subjected to antidumping duties in terms of Schedule 2 of the Customs and Excise Act. The Applicant remained steadfast in its approach that the Respondent s classification was erroneous as appears from correspondence from the 4
5 Commissioner dated 25 June where it sought to justify the decision to value the quilts at a value of US$14.33 per unit. [8] The Respondent was further advised that the quilts under embargo would not be released unless cleared under HS6301 of Chapter 9 of the Harmonized Customs Tariff, at a value of US$14.33 per unit but subject to the Respondent making payment of a deposit to cover the difference between the customs duty imposed by the Applicant and VAT based on the classification and value as declared, and further customs duty and VAT on the re-assessed value of US$14.33 per unit. [9] In an attempt to resolve the impasse, the Respondent furnished the Applicant with documents in support of the transaction value that it had attributed to the quilts including invoices paid by Respondent to its Chinese supplier. This demonstrated that the Respondent had purchased the quilts at US1.50 per unit. Despite having repeatedly engaged the Applicant on the issue through numerous meetings and the exchange of correspondence, the Applicant remained firm in its approach and refused to remove the embargo placed on the consignment of quilts. When this did not have the desired effect, the Respondent went further by requesting that the quilts under embargo be released so that they 5
6 could be returned to the Respondent s supplier on the Chinese mainland. The Applicant was not receptive to this request. [10] The Applicant demanded that it would only consent to the release of the quilts under embargo if the Respondent secured at stake through a payment of E50 million. [11] The Applicant eventually advised Respondent that it had determined that it had to make payment of customs duty and VAT on the re-assessed value of US$14.33 per unit, failing which the quilts would be forfeited to the State. As a result, the Respondent brought urgent proceedings before the High Court seeking the review and setting aside of the Applicant s determination of US$14.33 per unit and an order that it be declared that the true value of each quilt be declared to be US$1.50 per unit. [12] The application was heard on 16 December 2014 before Maphalala PJ, who delivered his judgment on 6 February The learnerd judge dismissed the application on the strength of a series of preliminary grounds advanced by the Applicant including that the application was not urgent, the alleged failure on the part of the Respondent to exhaust 6
7 its internal remedies and a failure to specify whether the application was premised on Rule 53 or the common law. [13] The Respondent was dissatisfied with the above judgment and launched an appeal against the judgment, which was heard by this Court on 6 March 2015, with Ramodibedi CJ, Maphalala J and Annandale AJ, having presided over the appeal. [14] On 13 March 2015, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal with costs and substituted the High Court s order with the following order: 1. the determination of the Applicant at the value of US14.33 was invalid; 2. the true value of each quilt is declared to be US$1.50; 3. Applicant was to pay all expenses occasioned by the seizure of Respondent s goods; 4. the Applicant was to pay the Respondent s costs. [15] On 8 April 2015, the Applicant brought an application as a matter of urgency staying the execution of this Court s order dated 13 March
8 pending the outcome of a review application to be launched within ten days. The relief sought was rendered moot and the application was not argued in view of the undertaking given on the Respondent s behalf not to execute the order of 13 March 2015, pending the outcome of a review application. [16] The Application for review was accompanied by an affidavit of Dumisani Masilela, the Commissioner General of the Applicant. The Respondent filed an answering affidavit sworn by Thembisa Matsebula, the Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent. [17] The grounds upon which the application was brought were contained in the affidavit sworn to by the Commissioner. They are basically two grounds. The first ground is that the Respondent failed to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the High Court. The second ground is that the Supreme Court ordered the Applicant to pay to the Respondent unquantified expenses occasioned by the seizure of the Respondent s goods, when no case had been made out for the expenses claimed. 8
9 [18] With regard to the first ground, the Commissioner states in paragraph 8 of his affidavit as follows: 8.1. I do not take issue with the golden rule of interpretations as enunciated in paragraph 15 of the Court s judgment. The problem is, with respect, that the above Honourable Court did not follow the Golden rule of interpretation as enunciated by it in interpreting the CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ACT Section 65 (4) (a) of the above Act reads as follows: 65(4)(a) If in the opinion of the Commissioner the transaction value of any imported goods cannot be ascertained in terms of Section 66 or has been incorrectly ascertained by the importer the Commissioner may determine a value, which shall, subject to a right of appeal to the Minister be deemed to be the value for custom duty purposes of the goods. (Emphasis my own) 8.3. There is nothing in the above quoted section or any portion of Section 65 which would render it 9
10 subservient to Section 66 as found by the above Honourable Court In Section 2 of the Act Commissioner is defined as the Commissioner of Customs and Excise appointed under Section 3. Section 3 of the Act reads as follow: 3(1) The Commissioner shall subject to the direction of the Minister, be charged with the administration of this Act, including the interpretation of the schedules and may designate an officer to be the controller in relation to any area or matter. (Emphasis my own) 8.5. The Minister is defined in Section 2 as meaning the Minister responsible for finance Section 65 (4) (a) clearly and unambiguously provided that the Commissioner may determine the value of goods for purposes of import duties and such determination shall be deemed to be the value thereof but subject to an appeal to the Minister. If the Commissioner, according to the Respondent, has erred in the determination of value placed on the goods, his complaint lies to the Minister on appeal. 10
11 8.7. The judgment of the Court has the effect of a finding that an aggrieved party has an automatic right of appeal directly to the High Court and as such that the provisions of Section 65 (4) (a) should be read as pro non scripto and no meaning needs to be attached thereto It is respectfully submitted that this is a misdirection by the above Honourable Court, especially in the light thereof that the Respondent in its application in the Court a quo did not even endeavour to make out a case as to why its disagreement with the Commissioner was not taken on appeal to the Minister and why it was necessary to appeal directly to the High Court The Respondent in the urgent application furthermore gave no reasons as to why the provisions of Section 65 (4) (a) were not followed and why it contended that it had an automatic right of appeal to the High Court While it is accepted that it is not a general principle of law that all administrative procedures must be exhausted before the High Court can be approached, each matter should be determined by its own peculiar facts In casu and as I have stated above, simply no facts were placed before the High Court other than facts 11
12 indicating why the Respondent was aggrieved at the determination made by the Commissioner and why it considered such determination to be wrong It will be submitted that Section 65 (4) (a) properly construed, requires that internal remedies first be exhausted especially where the Customs and Excise Act deals with a specialised field, and administered as such by specialists appointed to administer same. [19] The second ground for review was amplified in paragraph 9 of the Applicant s affidavit as follows: 9.1. The above Honourable Court sitting as a Court of Appeal, granted the relief the Respondent sought in its urgent application hear by the Court a quo, i.e. the High Court In prayer 7 of the Respondent s notice of motion it asks for the following relief: 7. Directing the Respondent to pay for all expenses occasioned by its seizure of Applicant s goods The Respondent, as the Applicant in the High Court, made out no case whatsoever for the expenses herein claimed. 12
13 9.4. What these expenses are, how much they amount to and how they are computed, hangs in the air The Respondent has a judgment in its favour in an amount unknown and the Applicant in this application has a judgment against it in an amount unknown for damage which occurred during the execution of a statutory and bona fide mandate For the above reasons the above Honourable Court erred in granting such relief and such relief at the very least is vague, embarrassing and unenforceable The order begs the question rather than gives the answer. Who is to determine the expenses and by what means and how are they to be opposed by the Applicant and before whom is this dispute to be resolved. 9.8 The order so granted by the above Honourable Court on Appeal is therefore bad at law and unenforceable. [20] The Applicant submitted that the Supreme Court is seized with the supervisory and review jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Constitution. It was pointed out that the South African Constitution does not have a similar section, but the Ghana Constitution has it where it seems to have been borrowed from. It was the contention of the 13
14 Applicant that the case of President Street Properties (Pty) Ltd vs. Maxwell Uchechukwu and Others Appeal Case No 11/2014 [2015] SZSC had settled the issue of the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [21] The Applicant submitted that although the grounds and conditions upon which review could be exercised were not prescribed by Parliament or by rules of court, an attempt was made in the President Street Properties case (supra) to identify some of the possible grounds which have been recognised by the various authorities. In Paragraph [15] of that judgment, Dlamini AJA stated, [15] From the above authorities some of the situations already identified as calling for judicial intervention are exceptional circumstances, fraud, patent error, bias, presence of some unusual element, new facts, significant injustice or absence of effective remedy [22] With regard to the first ground for review, namely failure to exhaust internal remedies the Applicant submitted that the Supreme Court misdirected itself when interpreting Section 65 (4) (a) of the Customs and Excise Act when it did not follow the golden rule of interpretation and give the words used in the statute their clear and unambiguous meaning 14
15 in order to arrive at the true intention of the legislature and give effect to it. [23] The Applicant reiterated its argument that Section 65 (4) (a) properly construed requires the internal remedies first to be exhausted especially where the Customs and Excise Act deals with a specialized field and administered as such by specialists appointed to administer. [24] The Applicant criticised the Supreme Court for holding that the Customs and Excise is not a specialized body unlike the Competition Commission. Reference was made to the case of Koyabe vs. Minister for Home Affairs (Lawyers for Human Rights as amicus curia 2010 (4) SA 327. [25] It was submitted by the Applicant that the Respondent did not give any reasons why it was aggrieved at the determination made by the Commissioner and why it considered the determination was wrong. [26] The Applicant argued that while it is accepted that it is not a general principle of law that all administrative procedures must be exhausted 15
16 before the High Court can be approached, each case should be determined on its own peculiar facts. [27) The Respondent submitted that review under Section 148 (2) of the Constitution could not be construed broadly to include an appeal with the result that the terms are interchangeable. The Respondent gave three reasons why review is distinguishable from appeal. [28] The first reason was that the Constitution makes it plain in Section 146 (1) that the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal and is vested with appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the High Court. Therefore, the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to entertain appeals from itself. [29] The second reason is that there is a clear distinction between appeals and reviews in the Constitution and the terms used are not interchangeable or synonymously used. [30] The third reason is that treating reviews as appeals is inconsistent with the Supreme Court s interpretation of Section 148 (2) in recent decisions. 16
17 [31] The Respondent submitted that in the Commissioner of Police and Another vs. Dallas Busani Dlamini and Four Others. [2015] SZSC 39 (29 July 2015) and in President Street Properties (Pty) Ltd. vs. Uchechukwu and 4 Others [2015] SZSC 11 (29 July 2015), this court did not only draw a careful distinction between its powers of appeal and review, but observed that Section 148 (2) must be applied as a matter of necessity with caution, since it goes against the underlying principle that the court must prevent the decapitation of the same action and must always endeavour to put a limit to needless litigation. [32] The Respondent argued that a number of important principles that can be distilled from this court judgments in the decisions in Dallas Busani Dlamini (supra), President Street Properties (supra) and Vilane N.O. and Another vs. Lipney Investments (Pty) Ltd. [2014] SZSC 62 (3 December 2014), can be summarised as follows: 1. In order to maintain certainty in cases already decided, the courts must be cautious against allowing a party to bring a matter back to Court on the same cause of action simply because he is dissatisfied with the outcome. 17
18 2. Section 148 (2) was not promulgated to permit litigants limitless chances to have cases previously adjudicated to finality reheard simply because they are disappointed with the result. 3. The Court s review jurisdiction can only be exercised where there is a patent and obvious error of fact or law. 4. There is a distinction between an appeal and review so that review jurisdiction is not an appeal and is not meant to be resorted to as an emotional reaction to an unfavourable judgment. 5. Not every decision will be impugned because it is wrong and not every misdirection or error of law will be a ground of review but will rather amount to a ground of appeal. 6. Only exceptional circumstances justify the application of Section 148 (2) including fraud, patent error, bias, new facts, significant injustice or the absence of an alternative remedy. 7. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 148 (2) is exceptional, and is to be invoked not to allow a litigant a second bite at the cherry, in the sense of another opportunity of appeal or hearing at Court of last resort, but to address only a situation of manifest injustice irremediable by normal Court process. 8. The Court s review jurisdiction must be narrowly defined and employed with due sensitivity, to avoid opening a flood gate or 18
19 reappraisals of cases otherwise finally disposed of, in accordance with the res judicata doctrine; [33] It was the contention of the Respondent that the Applicant s grounds of review amount to no more than grounds of appeal which do not come within the ambit of Section 148 (2) of the Constitution. [34] Dealing with the grounds of review, the Respondent submitted that the High Court erred in disposing of the matter on the basis of technical objections when it was obliged to address the merits, which approach was criticised in the decision of this court in Shell Oil Swaziland (Pty) Ltd vs. Molir World (Pty) Ltd t/a SIR Motors [2005] SZSC 11 (21 June 2006) [35] The Respondent submitted further that the Supreme Court did not err in dealing with the merits of the case, and even if they did so, this does not constitute a ground for review, in that it did not amount to a material misdirection. 19
20 [36] On the ground of failure to exhaust internal remedies by not lodging an appeal with the Minister, the Respondent submitted that the Supreme Court was correct in rejecting the argument. It was the Respondent s contention that the cannons of construction require that legislation be interpreted in such a way that the jurisdiction of the courts is not ousted. See De Wet vs. Deetles 1928 AD 286 at 290. [37] The Respondent further argued that in the interpretation of statutes there is a presumption against the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the courts, and the Section 65 (4) (a) of the Customs and Excise Act was not excluded from this presumption. [38] The Respondent cited the case of Met Cash Trading Limited vs. Commissioner of South African Revenue Service and Another 2002 (4) SA 317 where the Constitutional Court upheld that taxpayers right to approach the High Court for appropriate relief, notwithstanding the existence of a statutory right of appeal to the Minister. [39] The Respondent also referred to the case of Koyabe V. Vs. Minister of Home Affairs (Lawyers for Human Rights as amicus curiae 2010 (4) SA 327 where the South African Constitutional Court stated, 20
21 The duty to exhaust internal remedies is therefore a valuable and necessary requirement in our law. However, that requirement should not be rigidly imposed. Nor should it be used by administrators to frustrate the efforts of an aggrieved person or to shield the administrative process from judicial scrutiny. [40] It was the Respondent s contention that the legislature did not contemplate the exclusion of the affected importer s right to approach the High Court before lodging an appeal with the Minister. The Respondent argued that it is plain that the powers of the Commissioner are draconian under the Customs and Excise Act and could occasion a party significant hardship. [41] With regard to the ground that the court ordered the Applicant to pay all expenses to the Respondent occasioned by the seizure of its goods, the Respondent submitted that this ground does not come within the purview of Section 148 (2). It was the Respondent s contention that the Applicant abused its powers to the prejudice of the Respondent s business through unlawful detention of its goods and therefore the prayer and order are justified. 21
22 [42] The Respondent argued that what was envisaged by the order was that the Respondent would table these expenses to the Applicant based on the prayer so as to avoid litigation. Should the parties not reach an agreement on the precise amount for these expenses, the Respondent would return to the High Court by way of a separate claim for payment of a fixed amount on the basis that the question of the Applicant s liability had already been decided. [43] The review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been introduced by Section 148 of the Constitution which provides in relevant subsections as follows: (2) The Supreme Court may review any decision made or given by it on such grounds and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by an Act of Parliament or rules of court. 3. In the exercise of its review jurisdiction the Supreme Court shall sit as a full bench [44] It is common ground that no grounds and conditions have been prescribed by Parliament or by the rules of court. As such this court has 22
23 the responsibility to develop the jurisprudence in this field to provide guidance in the determination of applications for review. Both the Applicant and the Respondent have referred to recent decisions of this court on the matter and identified some of the guiding principles. These principles appear in paragraphs [21] and [32] of this judgement and I do not wish to repeat them, save to observe that I agree with them. [45] The critical issue in cases of this nature is whether the Applicant has established grounds to bring the Applicant within Section 148 (2) of the Constitution, having regard to the emerging jurisprudence on the review jurisdiction in this country and other similar jurisdictions. Regard must always be had to the need to respect the principles of finality in litigation on one hand, and the need to do justice where serious irregularities have occurred resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice, on the other. This is why in most cases the court will look for exceptional circumstances as recognised from time to time. Indeed this process requires a delicate balance. [46] In the present case, the main ground for review is that the Supreme Court erred in entertaining the Application when the Respondent had not exhausted internal remedies by appealing to the Minister under Section 65 (4) (a) of the Customs and Excise Act. The Supreme Court rejected 23
24 the argument that the Respondent had to exhaust internal remedies because the appeal to the Minister arises only where the price of goods was actually paid or payable could not be ascertained and not as in the present case where the price was ascertainable. Secondly the Act did not seek to oust the jurisdiction of the court. [47] In paragraphs [15] [16] [17] and [21] the Supreme Court came to the following conclusions: [15] This Court subscribes to the trite and tested principle of interpretation that every word in a statute must be given its ordinary grammatical meaning unless to do so would lead to an absurdity which could not have been contemplated by the Legislature. Adopting this approach, as we must, we take due notice of the word Subject to this Act----within the meaning of section 66: appearing in section 65 (1) is subservient to it. As to this line of interpretation see, for example such cases as Elias Velaphi Dlamini v Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and Other, Industrial Court of Appeal Case No. 6/2011 at para [5]; S V Marwane 1982 (3) SA 717 (A) at [16] Viewed in the light of the foregoing considerations, it is our considered view that the starting point in a matter such as this is section 66 (1) of the Act. One cannot simply jump to 24
25 section 66 (7) in a situation where the transaction value of the imported goods may be ascertained by showing the price actually paid or payable. [17] Similarly, it is our considered view that the right of appeal to the Minister provided in section 65 (4) (a) of the Act only arises in a situation where section 66 (1) is inapplicable, that is to say, where the price actually paid or payable cannot be ascertained. This then becomes a question of evidence to be determined on the facts in each case.... [21] In any event, we wish to stress that this Court subscribes to the well-known presumption against construing a statute so as to oust or restrict the jurisdiction of the superior courts in particular. We are in respectful agreement with the following principles expressed b Solomon CJ some 107 years ago in De Wet vs. Deetlefs 1928 AD 286 at 290:- It is a well-recognised rule in the interpretation of statutes that, in order to oust the jurisdiction of a court of law, it must be clear that such was the intention of the legislature. That case was followed with approval by the Full Bench in this Court in the case of the Prime Minister or Swaziland and Others vs. Christopher Vilakati, Civil Case No. 35/
26 [48] I am unable to fault the conclusions reached by the Supreme Court. Even the Respondent conceded that there is a presumption against ousting of the jurisdiction of the court, unless there are clear provisions to that effect in the Statute. However, the Respondent argued that the Applicant did not prove exceptional circumstances for not lodging its appeal with the Minister. The Applicant responded by stating that it did so because the Applicant had threatened to forfeit its goods and therefore needed urgent remedy to protect it interests. [49] In my view each case should be decided on its own merits and it should not be taken for granted that the provisions of the Act will be flouted without sound reasons as this will adversely affect the sound management of the tax regime. [50] However I find that even if the Supreme Court misdirected itself in interpreting the Act, it would not constitute a proper ground to review as it would merely amount to another appeal. The court did not decide the appeal per incuriaim, as it was aware of the provisions of the Act, it interpreted. This did not amount to an exceptional circumstance justifying review. 26
27 [51] The next ground for review was that the Supreme Court misdirected itself when it ordered the Applicant to pay for expenses occasioned to the Respondent by seizure of its goods when no basis for such claim had been laid or established. The Respondent argued that it would provide the details to the Applicant and in case of disagreement, it would approach the High Court to determine the matter. [52] This ground raises a serious issue whether the Supreme Court was entitled to determine the merits of the application on appeal and award damages when the trial court had dismissed the application on points in limine, without determining the merits. Had the trial court determined the merits of the Application, both parties would have addressed the issue of the expenses incurred during the seizure of the Respondent s goods and necessary evidence and arguments presented to prove the claim. [53] Even the issue of the assessment of the chargeable tax for the quilts was not addressed by the trial judge, but dealt with on an appeal. [54] In my view, the determination of the merits on appeal was a serious irregularity which caused a gross miscarriage of justice for an appellate 27
28 court to arrogate itself the role of a trial court, thus depriving the parties of a right to appeal against the decision made in the first instance. Instead of castigating the trial judge for dismissing the application on technicalities and determining the merits itself, the Supreme Court should have sent back the application to the High Court to be determined on the merits [55] For the foregoing reasons, this application for review is upheld. [56] Consequently, I make the following orders: (a) The application for review is granted with costs. (b) The judgment and orders of this court issued on 13 March 2015 are set aside. (c) The matter is remitted back to the High Court to hear and determine the original application by the Respondent on the merits, by another judge. DR. B.J. ODOKI JUSTICE OF APPEAL 28
29 I agree M.D. MAMBA ACTING JUSTICE OF APPEAL I agree N.J. HLOPHE ACTING JUSTICE OF APPEAL I agree R. CLOETE ACTING JUSTICE OF APPEAL I agree M.J. MANZINI ACTING JUSTICE OF APPEAL For Applicant: For Respondent: ADV. D.A. Smith A.D.V. C.S. Bester 29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT NEDBANK SWAZILAND (PTY) LTD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT Case No. 1898/2017 In the matter between: NEDBANK SWAZILAND (PTY) LTD Applicant AND SYLVIA WILLIAMSON 1 st Respondent SWAZILAND UNION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AND
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number : 521/06 Reportable In the matter between : BODY CORPORATE OF GREENACRES APPELLANT and GREENACRES UNIT 17 CC GREENACRES UNIT 18 CC FIRST RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND HELD AT MBABANE CASE NO. 2382/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND HELD AT MBABANE CASE NO. 2382/2009 In the matter between: BIG GAMES PARK TRUST t/a MLILWANE WILDLIFE SANCTUARY TERENCE EVEZARD REILLY 1 ST RESPONDENT 2 ND RESPONDENT AND
More informationINDUSTRIAL COURT OF APPEAL OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT HELD AT MBABANE CASE NO. 17/2017 NEDBANK SWAZILAND LTD
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF APPEAL OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT HELD AT MBABANE CASE NO. 17/2017 In the matter between: NEDBANK SWAZILAND LTD APPELLANT And SYLVIA WILLIAMSON SUFIAW 1 st RESPONDENT 2 nd RESPONDENT Neutral
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JS 1505/16 In the matter between: MOQHAKA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant and FUSI JOHN MOTLOUNG SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT,
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2009
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) CASE No: A 178/09 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER JAMES BLAIR HUBBARD and GERT MOSTERT Appellant/Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE. And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2010-03257 BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE Claimant And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable
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 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 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION: GRAHAMSTOWN)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION: GRAHAMSTOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO. EL 1544/12 CASE NO. ECD 3561/12 REPORTABLE EVALUATIONS ENHANCED PROPERTY APPRAISALS (PTY)
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Case no: J812\07 NIREN INDARDAV SINGH Applicant and SA RAIL COMMUTER CORPORATION LTD t\a METRORAIL Respondent JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT Case NO. 418/12 In the matter between: SIPHO DLAMINI Applicant And THE TEACHING SERVICE COMMISSION SWAZILAND GOVERNMENT THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 1 st Respondent
More informationIN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO
IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO Held at Maseru In the matter between: TSELISO MOKEMANE LC/APN/30B/2013 1 ST APPLICANT And TLHAKO MOKHORO HER WORSHIP MRS. MOTEBELE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley)
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) CASE
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 HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND KHANYISILE JUDITH DLAMINI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND In the matter between: JUDGMENT Civil Case 1876/2010 KHANYISILE JUDITH DLAMINI Plaintiff And WEBSTER LUKHELE Defendant Neutral citation: Khanyisile Judith Dlamini vs Webster
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Reportable Case no. D552/12 In the matter between: HEALTH AND OTHER SERVICES PERSONNEL TRADE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA TM SOMERS First
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND In the matter between: JUDGMENT Case No. 779/2009 MAGGIE TFWALA (NEE DLAMINI) 1 st Plaintiff CELIMPHILO TFWALA 2 nd Plaintiff NOKUTHULA TFWALA 3 rd Plaintiff PHETSILE TFWALA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU. and
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C of A (CIV) No 24/2016 CIV/APN/91/2016 DANIEL RANTLE Appellant and METHODIST CHURCH OF SOUTHERN AFRICA First Respondent ZIPHOZIHLE DANIEL SIWA, PRESIDING
More 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 informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 41/99 JÜRGEN HARKSEN Appellant versus THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS: CAPE OF GOOD
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 LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held at PORT ELIZABETH CASE NUMBER : LCC35/97 THE FARMERFIELD COMMUNAL PROPERTY TRUST Claimant concerning: THE REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 7 OF THE FARM KLIPHEUVEL
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number 90/2004 Reportable In the matter between: NORTHERN FREE STATE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY APPELLANT and VG MATSHAI RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) WATERKLOOF MARINA ESTATES (PTY) LTD...Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) Case number: 64309/2009 Date: 10 May 2013 In the matter between: WATERKLOOF MARINA ESTATES (PTY) LTD...Plaintiff and CHARTER DEVELOPMENT (PTY)
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT RIVERSDALE MINING LIMITED
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 536/2016 In the matter between: RIVERSDALE MINING LIMITED APPELLANT and JOHANNES JURGENS DU PLESSIS CHRISTO M ELOFF SC FIRST RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT Civil Case No. 1108/2014 In the matter between DUMISA ZWANE APPLICANT And JUDGE OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT PHUMELELE THWALA N.O. SIPHO MAMBA N.O. EZULWINI MUNICIPALITY
More informationSmt. Yallwwa & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 16 May, 2007
Supreme Court of India Smt. Yallwwa & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 16 May, 2007 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2674 of 2007 PETITIONER: Smt.
More informationIMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ACT 27 OF ] (English text signed by the President)
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ACT 27 OF 2002 [ASSENTED TO 12 JULY 2002] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 16 AUGUST 2002] ACT (English text signed by the President) Regulations
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held in Durban on 21 August 2006 Before Ncube AJ CASE NUMBER: LCC71R-06 Decided on: 25 August 2006 In the matter between : UMOBA FARMS (PTY) LTD Applicant and GANTSHO
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009
COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Arrangement of Rules COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Arrangement of Rules Rule PART I - PRELIMINARY 7 1 Citation and commencement... 7 2 Interpretation....
More 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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 162/10 In the matter between: THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE and SAIRA ESSA PRODUCTIONS CC SAIRA ESSA MARK CORLETT
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT RED CORAL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD CAPE PENINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 498/2017 In the matter between Reportable RED CORAL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and CAPE PENINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY RESPONDENT
More informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$3.00 WINDHOEK - 19 August 2003 No.3044 CONTENTS GOVERNMENT NOTICE Page No. 185 Promulgation of Community Courts Act, 2003 (Act No. 10 of 2003), of the Parliament...
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 informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GADDIEL MUTAMBA MUBENISHIBWA MULOWAYI. Neutral citation: Mulowayi v Minister of Home Affairs [2019] ZACC 1
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 249/18 FLORETTE KAYAMBA MULOWAYI NSONGONI JACQUES MULOWAYI GADDIEL MUTAMBA MUBENISHIBWA MULOWAYI First Applicant Second Applicant Third
More informationIN HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
IN HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO: 2671/2016P DATE: 7 OCTOBER 2016 In the matter between: CANNON SOUTH AFRICA APPLICANT and THE COMMISSIONER: SOUTH AFRICA REVENUE
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) CASH CRUSADERS FRANCHISING (PTY) LTD
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 1052/2013 2970/2013 CASH CRUSADERS FRANCHISING (PTY) LTD Applicant v LUVHOMBA
More informationSpecial Leave Petitions in Indian Judicial System
Special Leave Petitions in Indian Judicial System The Constitution of India under Article 136 vests the Supreme Court of India with a special power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment
More informationJUDGMENT- LEAVE TO EXECUTE
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2010/22522 DATE:19/09/2011 REPORTABLE In the matter between: PELLOW N.O. ALLAN DAVID 1 st Applicant KOKA N.O. JERRY SEKETE 2 nd Applicant INVESTEC BANK LTD
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) CASE NO: 16572/2018 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO IN THE MATIER BETWEEN : SOLIDARITY APPLICANT
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable In the matter between: THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, HOME AFFAIRS Case no: 1383/2016 FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT
More information8. Foreign judgments which can be registered not to be enforceable otherwise
Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 76) CHAPTER 76 THE FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT CHAPTER 76 THE FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
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 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 SUPREME COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT SWAZILAND BUILDING SOCIETY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT In the matter between: Civil Appeal No. 7/15 SWAZILAND BUILDING SOCIETY Appellant VS RODGERS BHOYANE DUPONT ROBERT NKAMBULE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS ATTORNEY GENERAL
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 informationSalem Advocate Bar Association,... vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2002
Supreme Court of India Salem Advocate Bar Association,... vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2002 Bench: B.N. Kirpal Cj, Y.K. Sabharwal, Arijit Passayat CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 496 of 2002 PETITIONER:
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case No: JR 1693/16 In the matter between: PIETER BREED Applicant and LASER CLEANING AFRICA First Respondent Handed down on 3 October
More informationJUDGEMENT CASE NO. 191/2015
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND In the matter between:- JUDGEMENT CASE NO. 191/2015 HERBERT MTHUNZI DLAMINI APPLICANT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE THE ATTORNEY
More informationNONTSAPO GETRUDE BANGANI THE LAND REFORM THE REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION FULL BENCH APPEAL JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) APPEAL CASE NO. CA25/2016 Reportable Yes / No In the matter between: NONTSAPO GETRUDE BANGANI Appellant and THE MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 466/07 In the matter between MUTUAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (TVL) (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and KOMATI DAM JOINT VENTURE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Mutual
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: JUDGMENT Not reportable Case No: 208/2015 MUTUAL & FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED FIRST APPELLANT AQUA TRANSPORT & PLANT HIRE (PTY)
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Reportable Case No: 1036/2016 ROAD ACCIDENT FUND APPELLANT and KHOMOTSO POLLY MPHIRIME RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Road Accident
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG ANDREW LESIBA SHABALALA
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 38 OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT, 1936 IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 38 AND 39 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1994
THE SUPREME COURT Murray C.J. 153/06 Hardiman J. Macken J. IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 38 OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT, 1936 and IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 38 AND 39 OF THE Between: CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1994
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 38/04 RADIO PRETORIA Applicant versus THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT LUZALUZILE FARMERS ASSOCIATION LTD THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAVING BANK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT In the matter between: Civil Case 820/15 LUZALUZILE FARMERS ASSOCIATION LTD Applicant And THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 st Respondent 2 nd Respondent
More informationBERMUDA CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION) (BERMUDA) ACT : 41
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION) (BERMUDA) ACT : 41 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8A 9 10 11 Short title Interpretation PART I PRELIMINARY PART II CRIMINAL
More informationTHE 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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR2134/15 DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS Applicant and GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL First Respondent BARGAINING
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 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 informationTrade Disputes Act Ch. 48:02
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION VOLUME: X TRADE DISPUTES CHAPTER: 48:02 PART I Preliminary 1. Short title 2. Interpretation PART II Establishment of panel and procedure for settlement of trade disputes
More informationCAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Vivier Adcj, Howie JA and Brand AJA
CAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Citation Case No 495/99 Court Judge 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Supreme Court of Appeal Heard August 28, 2001 Vivier
More 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 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 HINDUSTAN INSECTICIEDES LTD.... Appellant Through Mr.
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MARK WILLIAM LYNN NO FIRST APPELLANT TINTSWALO ANNAH NANA MAKHUBELE NO SECOND APPELLANT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 687/10 In the matter between: MARK WILLIAM LYNN NO FIRST APPELLANT TINTSWALO ANNAH NANA MAKHUBELE NO SECOND APPELLANT and COLIN HENRY COREEJES
More information.~.b. }.~1-~,g DATE. In t he matter between: (1) (2) (3) REPUBLIC 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 NO: 14674/18 (1) (2) (3) REPORTABLE: NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO REVISED..~.b. }.~1-~,g DATE In t he matter
More informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$3.80 WINDHOEK - 27 December 2002 No.2885 CONTENTS GOVERNMENT NOTICE No. 228 Promulgation of Lotteries Act, 2002 (Act No. 15 of 2002), of the Parliament...
More informationFOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT
FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT CAP. 7.28 Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act CAP. 7.28 Arrangement of Sections FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT Arrangement of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF SWAZILAND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT Appeal Case No. 05/2016 In the matter between: SABELO KUNENE Applicant And REX Respondent Neutral citation: Sabelo Kunene and Rex (05/2016) [2017] SZSC 42 (11
More informationChapter : 1 - PRELIMINARY. (1) This Act may be called the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
Chapter : 1 - PRELIMINARY Section 1 - Short title and commencement (1) This Act may be called the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. (2) Sections 11 to 14 shall come into force at once
More informationTHE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH Case No.: 3414/2010 Date Heard: 9 February 2012 Date Delivered: 16-02-2012 In the matter between: JANNATU ALAM Plaintiff and THE MINISTER
More informationB I L L. No. 108 An Act respecting the Athletics Commission and Professional Contests or Exhibitions TABLE OF CONTENTS ATHLETICS COMMISSION 1
1 B I L L No. 108 An Act respecting the Athletics Commission and Professional Contests or Exhibitions TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I Preliminary Matters 1 Short title 2 Interpretation PART II Commission 3 Commission
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA MINISTER OF HEALTH AND OTHERS TREATMENT ACTION CAMPAIGN AND OTHERS JUDGMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 9/02 MINISTER OF HEALTH AND OTHERS Appellants versus TREATMENT ACTION CAMPAIGN AND OTHERS Respondents Heard on : 3 April 2002 Decided on : 4 April 2002 Reasons
More informationFiji: Proceeds of Crime Act 1997 (as amended)
The Asian Development Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not guarantee the accuracy of this document and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences of
More informationBELIZE RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS ACT CHAPTER 171 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000
BELIZE RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS ACT CHAPTER 171 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Case Number : 364 / 05 In the matter between A MELAMED FINANCE (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and VOC INVESTMENTS LTD RESPONDENT Coram
More informationFOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999
FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999 An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to foreign exchange with the objective of facilitating external trade and payments and for promoting the orderly development
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 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 informationCHAPTER 7:04 FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT PART I
Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) 3 CHAPTER 7:04 FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART I REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN
More informationCM No.22555/2015 (Exemption) 3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. The application stands disposed of.
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 21. + CUSAA 20/2015 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM... Appellant Through: Mr Satish Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel. versus RISO INDIA PVT. LTD.... Respondent
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ERIC THOBILE MDYESHA APPLICANT
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT PARTIES: ERIC THOBILE MDYESHA APPLICANT And THE MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY FIRST RESPONDENT THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
More 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 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 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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : JR 161/06 SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : JR 161/06 In the matter between : SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES APPLICANT and SUPT F H LUBBE FIRST RESPONDENT THE SAFETY AND SECURITY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE CIRCUIT COURT, EAST LONDON) BLUE NIGHTINGALE TRADING 397 (PTY) LTD t/a SIYENZA GROUP
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE CIRCUIT COURT, EAST LONDON) REPORTABLE CASE NO. EL881/15 ECD 1681/15 In the matter between: BLUE NIGHTINGALE TRADING 397 (PTY) LTD t/a SIYENZA GROUP Applicant
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 informationCASE NO: 2138/2012 DATE HEARD: 08/08/2013 DATE DELIVERED: 23/08/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: 2138/2012 DATE HEARD: 08/08/2013 DATE DELIVERED: 23/08/2013 In the matter between REPORTABLE P S H APPLICANT and P H THE ADDITIONAL
More informationBERMUDA CASINO GAMING AMENDMENT ACT : 48
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA CASINO GAMING AMENDMENT ACT 2016 2016 : 48 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Citation Amends section 2 Amends section
More informationPost-clearance amendment of customs declarations and repayment of customs duties and VAT in the context of EU law
World Customs Journal Post-clearance amendment of customs declarations and repayment of customs duties and VAT in the context of EU law Abstract Hara Strati The present paper examines whether it is possible
More informationAmendments made in Indirect-Tax Law. Amendments relating to Central Excise
Amendments made in Indirect-Tax Law Amendments relating to Central Excise 1. Amendment of section 3A In the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Excise Act), in
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 informationAshan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003
Supreme Court of India Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003 Author: Dharmadhikari Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, D.M. Dharmadhikari. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3130 of 2002 Special Leave
More information