These were two opposed applications which were heard before me in the opposed roll for the 11th July, 2018.
With the concurrence of the applicant these two matters were heard at the same time as the nature of the relief so sought by the applicant was similar in both instances.
Case No. HC 6164/17
In case number HC 6164/17 the applicant brought a court application in which he cited The Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission as the respondent.
The applicant made a court application in which he referred to as a:
“Court application for a mandatory injuction to release... More
The papers filed as constituting this chamber application typify what has been colloquially referred to as a dog’s breakfast both as to content and form. One has to painstakingly read throughthe papers several timesto try and make head or tail of what the applicant’s cause of action is. I have read through the founding affidavit of the applicant several times as it is the document on which a judge can hopefully make out what the cause of action is. The founding affidavit is confusing and deals with unrelated or irrelevant matters to the relief sought. I will try and be... More
The applicant, (Ignatius), is a beneficiary of the land reform process, having signed with the Government a 99 year lease agreement. Ignatius filed this court application, challenging the intention to cancel the lease by the second respondent, (the Minister). The application was initially filed without the second respondent, (Marian), who was joined to these proceedings as a party through the order of this court on 23 November 2022 under case number HC 6122/22. More
This is an appeal against the refusal of bail (pending trial) in the Magistrates’ Court in terms of section 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] More
This is an application referred to by the applicant as “Court Application for the Second Revival of Temporary Variation of Bail Conditions in B1836/19: HH 735/19” being made in terms of s126 (1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] (the Act). The application was initially not opposed. On 3 May 2021, I directed that the parties file supplementary heads of argument on whether or not this court has jurisdiction to determine the application. More
