Your trial period has expired.
Please subscribe to a plan to continue using the app.
Administrative Law — Precautionary suspension — Validity of suspension — Municipal council's failure to identify jurisdictional grounds for suspension — Senior manager entitled to be informed of reasons for belief that suspension requirements met — Suspension declared constitutionally invalid. The applicant, Mr. Mathe, was placed on precautionary suspension by Sedibeng Municipality without the council identifying any basis for believing that the requirements for such suspension were met, nor providing him an opportunity to respond to those reasons. Mr. Mathe challenged the validity of his suspension, asserting that the lack of identified grounds rendered the decision unlawful. The court held that the suspension was invalid due to the council's failure to comply with the statutory requirements, thereby breaching the principle of legality enshrined in the Constitution.
Interdict — Interim interdict — Urgent application to restrain construction pending dispute resolution — Applicant, a property owner, sought to interdict neighbour's construction on adjacent land, claiming lack of approval under estate rules — Respondents contended urgency was self-created — Court found applicant acted promptly upon learning of construction, and urgency arose from resumed works amid unresolved disputes — Applicant established prima facie right, apprehension of irreparable harm, balance of convenience in favor of relief, and absence of satisfactory alternative remedy — Interim interdict granted pending resolution of dispute.
Contempt of Court — Maintenance Order — Urgent application for contempt of court due to non-compliance with a maintenance order — Respondent declared in contempt for failure to pay maintenance as ordered — Respondent's defense based on financial inability rejected due to evidence of available funds — Holding that contempt established beyond reasonable doubt, with conditions set for suspension of committal.
Interdict — Final interdict — Intimidation and harassment — Applicants sought a final interdict against the respondent for threatening and intimidating conduct towards them, which included belittling, harassment, and refusal to engage meaningfully with their attorneys — Respondent conceded to being overbearing and making threats but provided no valid defenses — Court found overwhelming evidence of the respondent's unacceptable conduct and the necessity for protection of the applicants' rights — Final interdict granted to prevent further unlawful conduct by the respondent.
Companies — Name disputes — Application for name change — Applicant objecting to First Respondent's company name on grounds of confusing similarity — Applicant's name and trademarks containing "MONDI" — First Respondent's name deemed confusingly similar, likely to mislead the public regarding association — Tribunal orders First Respondent to change its name to one not incorporating "MONDI" within 60 days, with provisions for non-compliance.
Contract — Tacit terms — Appeal concerning the existence of an implied or tacit term in a contract for the supply and installation of agricultural equipment — Appellant contended that a tacit term existed allowing for revised pricing due to delays caused by the Respondent — Court held that the alleged tacit term was neither clear nor obvious and could not be imported into the agreement — Supervening impossibility found as neither party intended to be bound by the original contract by the end of February 2024, leading to the obligation for the Appellant to refund the capital amount.
Land Claims — Review application — Jurisdiction — Applicants seeking to review decision of Regional Land Claims Commissioner regarding land restitution claims — Respondents raising point in limine challenging jurisdiction based on competing claims and LAMOSA interdict — Court finding that review application is based on administrative decisions and not new claims — Point in limine dismissed, allowing the review to proceed.
Immovable Property — Double Sale — Competing claims to transfer of property — Municipality's administrative error resulting in double sale to two purchasers — Prior valid sale to first purchaser preventing specific performance in favour of later purchaser — Declaratory relief refused where no practical effect — Municipality liable for costs due to its negligence.
Execution — Enforcement of court order — Application for enforcement pending appeal — Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, section 18(3) — Applicants sought to enforce a restraint of trade order against the respondent, a former veterinarian partner, while the respondent's application for leave to appeal was pending — Exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm established — Application granted, with costs awarded to the applicants.
Costs — Security for costs — Application for security for costs by applicant against respondent — Respondent's claim for profit shares alleged to be vexatious and an abuse of process — Court finding exceptional circumstances due to respondent's inability to satisfy costs orders and history of unmeritorious litigation — Main action stayed pending furnishing of security for costs.
Administrative law — Review of administrative decisions — Applicant declared a prohibited person under section 29(1)(f) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002 due to possession of a fraudulent permanent resident permit — Application for condonation for late filing of review application — Delay attributed to financial constraints and lack of legal representation — Explanation for delay inadequate and reasonable prospects of success on the merits not outweighing inordinate delay — Condonation refused; merits considered — Absence of audi alteram partem in initial decision not remedied by subsequent decisions — Application dismissed, each party to bear its own costs.
Contract — Exception — Unjust enrichment — Plaintiff claiming payment for services rendered without valid purchase orders — Defendant excepting to particulars of claim on grounds of lack of cause of action — Court finding that particulars of claim allege essential elements for unjust enrichment — Clause in contract requiring purchase orders does not render claim excipiable at pleading stage — Exception dismissed.