SUMMARY Background Jeannette Valerie Scally (the “Applicant”) and Feltra (Pty) Ltd (the “Respondent”) concluded a sale agreement (the “Agreement”) in terms of which the Respondent would pay the full purchase price in 5 (five) instalments. The Respondent failed to effect payment of the second and remaining instalments timeously but part payments in lesser amounts were
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY Mr Doyle (the “Appellant”) had a credit card issued to him by MBNA Europe Bank Limited (“MBNA”) in 1997 under a running credit card agreement (the “Agreement”). In terms of clause 8f of the Agreement, MBNA were entitled to demand the full outstanding balance of the facility in certain circumstances, subject to
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The Application brought before the court concerned the enforcement of a restraint of trade agreement for a period of 12 (Twelve)months within the geographical area of Richards Bay, as well as certain confidentiality undertakings, to be held against Marshall Naidoo (“the First Respondent”), an erstwhile sales representative of North Safety Products (“the
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 In 1999, two sisters created an inter vivos trust known as the Arathusa Family Trust (the “Trust”). The Trust is the sole shareholder of a company called Manyeleti (Pty) Ltd (the company), which owns a farm that is part of a game reserve. The three trustees appointed in terms of the trust
SUMMARY This case deals with an application for leave to appeal a sentence handed down by the Welkom Regional Magistrates Court. The facts of the case are as follows:   Facts On or about 25 January 2015, the Appellant (Mr. Mlenga) and his two co-accused were relaxing outside their rented premises in Welkom. They were
SUMMARY The matter before the Supreme Court Appeal (the “SCA”) dealt with the question of whether the Johannesburg High Court (“the court a quo”) was correct in granting summary judgment against the First and Second Appellants (“Appellants”). Should this question be answered in the affirmation, the question then would be whether the court a quo
SUMMARY On analysis of the factual matrix, the dispute at hand emanated from the unfair dismissal of TP Mthethwa (“the Employee”) by the Department of Health: Gauteng Province (“the Employer”).  The Employee initially referred the unfair dismissal dispute to the relevant bargaining council where the Employee was unsuccessful, being dissatisfied with that outcome, the Employee
SUMMARY Richard Mvubu, the Applicant (“Employee”), was permanently employed by Pharmaceutical Contractor (Pty) Ltd, the Respondent (“Employer”). The Employee was employed to work the night shift in the manufacturing and granualtion unit of the Employer. Following an attempted armed robbery with a demand for ransom at the Employer’s premises, the Employer initiated retrenchment proceedings in
SUMMARY On or about 25 November 2014, combined summons which were signed by Lambert Attorneys, cited the Department:  Transport, Province of KwaZulu-Natal (the “Department”) as the Plaintiff and nine employees of the Department as the Defendants. The particulars of claim to the summons alleged that the Defendants were involved in a fraudulent scheme that caused