SUMMARY Subsequent to the finding in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg (the “Court”), by Grant AJ in First Rand Bank Ltd v Excel B Shabangu & 4 Others (“First Rand Bank Ltd”) that the amendment of  Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court (“Rule 32”) applies retrospectively,  Siwendu J,
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court (“Rule 32”), which governs the summary judgment procedure, was recently amended with effect from 1 July 2019. The substantive amendments included, inter alia: a plaintiff cannot make an application for summary judgment until such time as the defendant has delivered its plea; and a
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The Defendant is a practicing neurosurgeon and the Plaintiff was his patient. During or about 2004, the Plaintiff consulted with the Defendant in respect of a nerve related pain. The Defendant operated on the Plaintiff to repair, inter alia, an intervertebral disc herniation. The operation was successful and the Plaintiff was rendered
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY This case went on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (the “SCA”) wherein the SCA upheld an appeal against the decision of the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria (the “Court”). The issue before the SCA was whether or not the suretyship covered the liabilities arising under two agreements,
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY Concerned with (i) the increasing tendency by litigants, mainly banks and other financial institutions, to enrol in the High Court, foreclosure applications with amounts falling within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court; and (ii) litigants taking advantage of the concurrent jurisdiction between the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria (the
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The Constitutional Court of South Africa (the “Court”) recently handed down judgment in two applications seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Full Court of the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town (the “High Court”). The question of law before the Court was whether or not
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The Supreme Court of Appeal (the “SCA”) recently upheld a decision of the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg (the “court a quo”), concerning a decision adopted by written consent of the majority of directors in terms of section 74 of the Companies Act No. 71 of 2008 (the
SUMMARY The Supreme Court of Appeal (the “SCA”) recently set aside a decision of the Tax Court of South Africa, held in Gauteng (the “Tax Court”), in terms of which the Tax Court increased understatement penalties levied by the South African Revenue Services (“SARS”). Purlish Holdings (Pty) Ltd (the “Appellant”), having paid provisional tax to
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY Mr. Alister James Forsyth (the “Applicant”) made an application to the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town (the “Court”), for the consolidation of two actions instituted by the Applicant against different defendants in terms of Rule 11 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The Applicant, who is the