Article written by Savera Singh, checked and released by Celeste Frank, Associate at Schindlers Attorneys. 31 August 2022 BACKGROUND On 18 November 2019 the National Director of Public Prosecution (“the Applicant”) obtained a provisional restraint order (“the provisional order”) against the parties’ pursuant to the provisions of Section 26 of the Prevention of Organised Crime
Article written by Avyakta Sing, Candidate Attorney, checked and released by Kyle Venter, Associate at Schindlers Attorneys. 24 February 2022 Background The Gauteng Department of Education (“the Respondent”) was Mr. Nhleko’s (“the Applicant”) employer. He referred a dispute to the Education Labour Relations Council (the “ELRC”) when his employment was terminated, stating that he was
SUMMARY ISSUE ON APPEAL  The issue in this appeal is whether a text Message constituted an animo contrahendi (an offer, which upon its acceptance, could give rise to an enforceable contract). The court a quo held that it did.  The Appellant, Mr.  Kgopana (“Kgopana”), was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme court of Appeal (“SCA”).
SUMMARY The Appellant (“Mushi”) had been employed by the Respondent, Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd, (“Exxaro”) at Grootegeluk Coal Mine for 24 years. On 10 March 2015, Mushi was on duty driving an oversized coal haul truck. Mushi reported to his foreman that a shovel operator was loading his truck in an unsafe manner and the
SUMMARY In casu, this was application for reinstatement of a municipal official that claimed they had been unlawfully removed.   The abovementioned application was granted by a single judge of the High Court, siting as the court a quo, but the aforementioned application was not what the present court was called to adjudicate. Instead, the
SUMMARY This judgment concerns an application for leave to appeal prompted by Standard Bank of South Africa Limited(the “Applicant”), being opposed by Heiden Leslie (the “First Respondent”). On analysis of the factual matrix, the Applicant raised two grounds that the Court had failed to address when contemplating the evidence.  Firstly, that the Court had failed
SUMMARY This case concerned the Constitutional Court’s amplified jurisdiction to hear cases that do not raise a constitutional issue in the context of an application for leave to appeal premised on a contractual dispute.   Factually the case concerned a dispute around the right of pre-emption envisaged in the lease agreement between the respective parties.