|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| April 2022 |
|
|
Summary
Urgent applications – self created urgency – application for temporary interdict without proper notice – litigation involving termination of fuel supply agreement – applicant being aware of the impugned notice of termination of the agreement three months before institution of urgent application – applicant failing to account for the delay in the founding papers – elements of interdict discussed – failure to satisfy elements of interdict - interim relief refused.
Costs on attorney and client scale – Institution of urgent application on one court day notice despite the request for proper notice by the respondent two months before the urgent application was instituted – Applicant’s conduct objectionable – Costs on attorney and client scale ordered.
Costs de bonis propriis – grounds discussed – the notice of motion in breach of rule 8(7) and 8(8) of High Court Rules 1980 without justification and despite repeated warnings from the Court of Appeal and the High Court – Court file having countless blank pages, thus making reading experience cumbersome – Legal practitioners negligent in a serious degree by abdicating their responsibility to ensure the file was court ready – legal practitioners conducted themselves in a manner deserving of punitive costs. .
|
29 April 2022 |
|
SUMMARY
This is a delictual claim in which the plaintiff has asked the Court to award him damages for assault inflicted to his son by the Defendants’ agents while his son was under their care and protection at Mohlomi mental hospital. The Plaintiff states that as a result of the assault, his son suffered permanent brain damage and is bedridden, lacks anal and urinary sphincter control. Consequently, his son needs a regular medical attention, special dietary and full time professional nurse. The Defendants do not deny liability but only charge that after receiving the letter of demand, they engaged the Plaintiff’s counsel Mr. Matooane for negotiations concerning plaintiff’s claim. This is due to the fact that it is impossible for the Ministry to just pay out an amount of Twenty Million Maloti (M20 000 000.00) without referring the child for medical assessment to ascertain the degree of damage (injury) caused.
Held:
The Respondents are liable for the injuries incurred by the child and resultantly, to compensate the Plaintiff.
|
28 April 2022 |
|
|
27 April 2022 |
|
|
27 April 2022 |
|
|
27 April 2022 |
|
SUMMARY:
Judgments and orders – Rescission – A claim for compensation arising out of breach of contract – Court granting default judgment without evidence being tendered – High Court Rule 45(1) – Whether an order erroneously granted.
|
27 April 2022 |
|
|
23 April 2022 |
|
|
22 April 2022 |
|
|
22 April 2022 |
|
SUMMARY
CRIMINAL LAW: Accused charged with murder- serious flaws in investigation of the case- circumstantial evidence leaving more than one possible inference- crown relied on hearsay admission made by another co-suspect-
|
20 April 2022 |
|
Summary
Rescission application – brought in terms of Rule 45 of the High Court Rules 1980 – on grounds of non-compliance with Rule 27(3) – Judgement erroneously granted – requirements of rescission under Rule 45 restated – applicant need not establish sufficient cause - application granted.
|
12 April 2022 |
|
SUMMARY:
Application in terms of Rule 30(1) of the High Court Rules of 1980 – Applicant claiming that respondents took an improper or irregular step – Respondents having not complied with the request for further particulars instead lodged application for Summary Judgement – Applicant claiming that the respondents should have first provided the requested particulars and that the summary judgment application was set down for hearing less than seven days from the date of its delivery – Summary judgement application set aside as improper or irregular step for want of proper notice.
|
11 April 2022 |
|
SUMMARY
CRIMINAL LAW: murder, attempted robbery, unlawful possession of firearm-accused raising alibi belatedly during trial and bare denials to allegations linking them to the offences committed-evidence to be evaluated as whole not in isolation- circumstantial evidence proves that accused were at the scene and committed the offences-doctrine of common purpose.
|
8 April 2022 |
|
SUMMARY
Criminal procedure – Appeal – Failure of Magistrate to warn an unrepresented accused that he is facing a serious charge which is punishable by a hefty mandatory minimum sentence – Reviewable irregularity – Circumstances under which Magistrate may conduct proceedings and record evidence in English without assistance of a court interpreter.
|
6 April 2022 |
|
SUMMARY
Recusal – approach to application for – objective test applied. Application dismissed-no order as to costs.
|
4 April 2022 |