Most Recent Judgments

Condonation applications – there is some interplay between the obligation to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the non-compliance of a rule of court and the reasonable prospects of success on appeal.


Civil Practice — Rule 57 — Exception — Exception raised that particulars of claim failed to set out a proper cause of action — Plaintiff failed to allege and/or explicitly set out acts of bad faith, dishonesty and/or fraud on the part of the defendants in executing their duties — Plaintiff did not plead facts to demonstrate exceptional circumstances entitling it to rely on private remedies for breach of a public law right — Pleading excipiable if no cause of action is disclosed — The exceptions raised by the defendants are upheld.

Law of property – Ownership – Claim for ownership by accession – Such manifests when the object or a part thereof (accessory) incorporated by natural or artificial means into another (principal) thing – Plaintiff unable to [rove ownership or bona fid

Subsequent to the noting of an appeal, rule 8(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court requires an appellant to file a record of the proceedings of the appeal.

The appellant brought an application for review against the first respondent seeking declaratory relief regarding the annual contribution increase of medical aid funds, and whether such an increase forms part of an amendment of the rules of the appellant, therefore requiring approval from the first respondent.

The appellant (Swakop Uranium) approached the High Court seeking a declarator that the second respondent (Mr Lubbe), as sole member is personally liable for the debts of a close corporation, represented nomino officio by the first respondent as its liquidator - in terms of s 64(1) of the Close Corporations Act 26 of 1988 (the Act); on the ground that Mr Lubbe was party to the business of the corporation being carried on recklessly, with

  News, Speeches and Guidelines