SUMMARY Doves Group Proprietary Limited (the “Applicant”) launched an application against Johan Daniel Etzart Rousseau (the “First Respondent”), and Funeral Industry Reformed Association (the “Second Respondent”)(collectively referred to as the “Respondents”), in order to interdict and prevent the Respondents from posting defamatory information on all social media platforms about the Applicant.  The First Respondent was
BACKGROUND This matter was heard by a full bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal with leave of the court a quo, being the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria. In the main action, Tusk Construction (Pty) Ltd (“the First Appellant”) and Joint Equity Investments (Pty) Ltd (“the Second Appellant”) sued the Independent
SUMMARY Mr Bradley Russel Stearns, a 51-year-old man (the “Plaintiff”) sued Robispec (Pty) Ltd (the “Defendant”) in respect of an accident that occurred in a Pick n Pay store which is owned and manged by the Defendant (“the Store”). On 03 April 2017 the Plaintiff ruptured his left bicep as a result of a poorly
SUMMARY This is an application for rescission of judgment wherein Interactive Trading 115 CC (the “First Applicant”) and Barend Stephanus Schempers (the “Second Applicant”) (the “Applicants”) sought to rescind a judgment which was granted in default against them on 21 December 2017 and later varied on 05 June 2018. Both the main judgment and the
SUMMARY This is an application for rescission of judgment wherein Interactive Trading 115 CC (the “First Applicant”) and Barend Stephanus Schempers (the “Second Applicant”) (the “Applicants”) sought to rescind a judgment which was granted in default against them on 21 December 2017 and later varied on 05 June 2018. Both the main judgment and the
SUMMARY The Applicant (“Nativa”) seeks to join the Third Respondent (“Marce”) as third defendant in an action for damages allegedly suffered by Nativa as a result of a fire that broke out on commercial premises owned by the First Respondent (“Keymax”). Nativa leased a unit from Keymax for the purposes of packaging pharmaceutical materials. The
BACKGROUND The Applicant is a registered credit provider in terms of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (Hereinafter “NCA”). The Respondent is a taxi operator. The Applicant had leased two vehicles to the Respondent as taxis to be used in the operation of his business (“the taxis”). The Respondent was substantially in arrears with
SUMMARY Zamani Marketing and Management Consultants (the “Applicant”), instituted proceedings in terms of S33 of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 (the “Act”) to review and set aside an arbitration award. Subsequently, the Applicant also brought an interlocutory application wherein the Applicant sought to invoke Rule 53(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court (the “Rules(s)”),
SUMMARY This was an interlocutory application made in terms of rule 30A(1) of the Uniform Rules of Superior Court Practice (“the uniform rules of court”) wherein the Minister of Safety and Security (“the Applicant”) sought an order striking out an answering affidavit deposed to by Mzukisi Tyali (“the First Respondent”). The main application was made
SUMMARY The material facts of the present matter can be summarised as follows: • The Appellants (Mr Du Bruyn and his wife) were business owners, laying their trade in the sealing off of industrial leaks. The Appellants’ business operation was facilitated though three inter-related entities; • The Respondent (Mr Karsten) shared both a professional and