Family Law — Summary Judgment — Application for summary judgment by the Executor of a deceased estate and the deceased's spouse for recovery of alleged outstanding rental from the First and Second Defendants, who are family members. The Defendants contest the existence of a lease agreement, asserting that the arrangement was intended as a transfer of property ownership rather than a lease. The court finds that the matter involves a genuine family dispute requiring full examination of evidence rather than summary judgment. The Defendants' version is deemed bona fide, and the application for summary judgment is dismissed, allowing the dispute to be resolved in a trial setting.
Criminal Law — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Appellants convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment — Appeal dismissed as identity of appellants proven beyond reasonable doubt — Trial court's evaluation of evidence upheld, with no substantial and compelling circumstances found to warrant deviation from minimum sentence.
Appeal — Leave to appeal — Quantum of damages — Applicant sought leave to appeal against the quantum of damages awarded to the respondent for unlawful arrest and detention — Applicant did not challenge the legal or factual findings of the initial judgment but contended that the damages awarded were excessive compared to similar cases — Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the initial court's discretion in awarding damages was exercised improperly or unreasonably, thus leave to appeal was refused with costs.
Summary Judgment — Application for summary judgment — Plaintiff seeking judgment against second defendant based on credit agreements — Second defendant opposing on grounds of invalid cession and incorrect quantification — Court assessing whether defendant raised bona fide defence — Plaintiff established proper cause of action and met pleading requirements — Summary judgment granted for reduced balances, with limited leave to defend on residual amount of R280,000 and interest.
Appeal — Motion proceedings — Dispute of fact — Court's discretion not to refer matter for oral evidence — Rule 6(5)(g) — Appellant sought to enforce a clause in a written agreement regarding ownership of a vehicle following a separation — Court a quo dismissed the application, finding no breach of the agreement — Appeal dismissed, confirming that the court was not compelled to refer the matter for oral evidence and correctly exercised its discretion.
Contract — Oral agreement — Plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement for IT services with a monthly fee of R500,000 — Defendant admitted the agreement but claimed a subsequent variation reducing the fee to R150,000 due to alleged non-performance by the plaintiff — Plaintiff denied any variation and continued invoicing at the original rate — Legal issue of whether the defendant established a bona fide defence to the summary judgment application — Court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence as required by Rule 32(3)(b), and thus summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff.
Civil Procedure — Non-joinder — Appeal against dismissal of action for unlawful arrest and detention — Appellant claimed damages for unlawful arrest by a private security officer and subsequent assault while in police custody — Court found that the appellant was not arrested by the police but by an employee of Black Dolphin Investigations, leading to a material non-joinder of Black Dolphin — Non-joinder deemed fatal to the appellant's claim, resulting in dismissal of the appeal with costs.
Appeal — Leave to appeal — Interim orders — Respondents sought leave to appeal against an interim order restraining the permanent filling of the position of General Manager: Programme Management pending review proceedings — Court held that the order was not final and did not dispose of the substantive issues in Part B — Respondents failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard — Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Labour Law — Legal representation — Application for legal representation in misconduct dismissal proceedings — Applicant sought legal representation based on medical grounds after previous application was denied — Arbitrator found no clear right established for legal representation, citing the straightforward nature of the case and the applicant's legal training — Medical report deemed insufficient to demonstrate incapacity to represent himself, and procedural deficiencies noted in the application — Application for review dismissed.
Interdict — Business operations — Applicant sought an interdict against Respondent to prevent interference with his business and tenants at a property sold to Respondent — Applicant claimed ownership and alleged unlawful conduct by Respondent, including threats and intimidation — Court found Applicant failed to establish a case for the interdict as allegations were largely hearsay and lacked sufficient evidence — Main application dismissed with costs, and counter application granted directing tenants to pay rent to Applicant's attorney pending trial.
Companies — Winding-up — Conversion of voluntary winding-up to court winding-up — Authority of former director to oppose application — Section 353(2)(a) of Companies Act 61 of 1973 depriving former directors of authority upon commencement of creditors’ voluntary winding-up — Former director lacking authority to instruct attorneys to oppose conversion application — Costs of unauthorized opposition payable personally by former director. The applicant sought to convert the voluntary winding-up of GCDP Group (Pty) Ltd into a court-ordered winding-up, alleging that it was a creditor and that the circumstances justified court intervention. A challenge was raised regarding the authority of the attorneys representing the first respondent, based on the former director's lack of authority to act after the commencement of the voluntary winding-up. The court held that the former director did not have the authority to oppose the application due to the provisions of section 353(2)(a) of the Companies Act, which terminated the powers of directors upon the commencement of a creditors’ voluntary winding-up. The voluntary winding-up was converted to a winding-up by the court, and the former director was ordered to personally pay the applicant’s costs of the application.
Civil Procedure — Striking out application — Rule 6(15) of the Uniform Rules of Court — Applicant's replying affidavit containing new matter not included in the founding affidavit — Court declining to exercise discretion to allow new matter as it was not an exceptional case — Application to strike out granted with costs.