Taxation — Review of taxation — Fees for counsel in unopposed application — Applicant sought review of taxing master's decision to allow a full day fee for counsel's appearance in a consent order hearing. The respondent contended that the matter was unopposed, as no answering affidavit was filed, and thus the full day fee was inappropriate. The court found that the taxing master erred in treating the matter as opposed and held that the correct fee should reflect the unopposed nature of the application, allowing a reduced fee of R4 500 for one hour of attendance and disallowing R40 500 taxed off.
Labour Law — Review of arbitration award — Applicant sought to review and set aside the arbitration award of the Commissioner regarding his dismissal for misconduct — The Commissioner found the dismissal substantively unfair due to inconsistent application of discipline but procedurally fair, awarding compensation instead of reinstatement — Applicant contended the Commissioner erred by not ordering reinstatement and miscalculating compensation based on his salary — Court held that the Commissioner did not exonerate the applicant of wrongdoing and reasonably determined that reinstatement was inappropriate given the seriousness of the applicant's conduct and the evidence presented.
Labour Law — Review of arbitration award — Application for review of arbitration award under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act — Applicant dismissed for gross negligence — Commissioner found dismissal substantively unfair due to inconsistent application of discipline but procedurally fair, awarding compensation instead of reinstatement — Applicant contended Commissioner erred by not ordering reinstatement and miscalculating compensation based on salary — Court held that the Commissioner’s decision was reasonable and within the bounds of reasonableness, dismissing the review application.
Prior restraints on expression — Application for interdict — Applicants sought to prevent first respondent from making statements they claimed were defamatory — Court held that prior restraints are rarely granted and require proof of irreparable harm — Applicants failed to demonstrate such harm, as the first respondent's threats were based on a genuine belief in a payment obligation — No extortion found, as threats to embarrass were linked to perceived legal obligations — Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency and merit.
Summary Judgment — Application for summary judgment — Plaintiff sought summary judgment for cancellation of an instalment sale agreement and return of a vehicle after defendant defaulted on payments — Defendant's plea raised no bona fide defence, primarily contesting liability with insurer rather than the plaintiff — Court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate a triable issue or sufficient grounds for resisting the application — Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for cancellation of the agreement and return of the vehicle.
Leave to appeal — Restitutio in integrum — Application for leave to appeal against dismissal of claim for damages by minor — Plaintiffs contending that compromise was substantially prejudicial — Court finding no substantial prejudice based on evidence available at time of settlement — Plaintiffs failing to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal — Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Discovery — Interlocutory application — Rule 35(7) — Applicant seeks order compelling respondent to produce documents related to repudiation of Income Continuation Benefit policy — Respondent opposes on grounds of irrelevance, lack of possession, and claims of fishing expedition — Court finds requested documents relevant to issues in main action, including medical and financial records — Respondent's supplementary affidavit confirms existence of most documents, undermining earlier claims — Application remains live as not all documents may have been produced — Court orders respondent to furnish remaining discoverable documents or provide proper affidavit regarding their absence.
Court Procedure — Reconsideration of Orders — Rule 6(12)(c) of Uniform Rules of Court — First Respondent sought reconsideration of an interim interdict granted to the Applicant regarding access to a sewer pump station on the First Respondent’s property, claiming improper service of the application. — The Court distinguished between applications under Rules 6(8) and 6(12)(c), holding that the latter applies when a Respondent has been served and is absent, and the onus is on the Respondent to prove that their absence was not wilful. — The First Respondent's failure to demonstrate that their absence was unintentional resulted in the dismissal of their application for reconsideration.
Contract — Summary judgment — Application for summary judgment for unpaid PSIRA price escalations — Plaintiff claimed R1,482,546.16 for services rendered under a written contract extended orally — Defendant raised procedural and substantive defences, including lack of notice under Act 40 of 2002, prescription, and validity of oral extensions — Court held that the claim was for a liquidated amount within the ambit of Rule 32(1) and that the procedural objections lacked merit, allowing the summary judgment application to proceed.
Criminal Law — Rape — Conviction and sentence appeal — Appellant convicted of rape of a seven-year-old girl and sentenced to life imprisonment — Appeal against conviction and sentence on grounds including improper evaluation of evidence, reliability of complainant, and rejection of appellant's version — Court upheld trial court's findings, emphasizing deference to trial court's credibility assessments and absence of material misdirection — Appeal dismissed.
Recusal — Application for recusal of presiding judge — Applicant sought recusal based on alleged apprehension of bias arising from the judge's prior handling of related cases and comments made in an appeal judgment — Court held that the applicant must demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias, which was not established in this instance — Application for recusal dismissed.
Electricity Supply — Disconnection of electricity — Urgent application for restoration of electricity supply following disconnection by body corporate — Applicant contending unlawful disconnection without proper notice as per Acknowledgement of Debt (AOD) — Respondent asserting compliance with contractual obligations — Court finding prima facie right established by applicant, but noting respondent's failure to adequately invoke disconnection procedure outlined in AOD — Respondent ordered to restore electricity supply within 24 hours, pending compliance with AOD.