The background to this matter is that on 20 February 2024 the respondent as applicant in case number HCBC 371/24 obtained against the applicant as respondent a provisional order from this court (per NDLOVU J), whose interim relief is couched as follows:
Pending determination of this matter, the Applicant is granted the following relief -
The Respondent be and are (sic) hereby ordered and directed to allow the Applicant to take delivery of 700 tonnes of coke in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding of the 30th December 2022. More
Applicant in the matter at hand on 29 August 2024 filed with this court an application which he calls an application for condonation for late filing of reinstatement. In his founding affidavit on paragraph 3 he calls it an application for condonation for late filing of appeal for unpaid salaries from respondent. More
This is an appeal against a decision by a designated agent (DA) under the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Catering Industry (CBA Catering). 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 application for review wherein the applicant seeks the setting aside the respondent’s decision to declare one of its trucks and two trailers (the vehicles) declared forfeit to the State. The forfeiture followed the vehicles’ irregular importation into the country on a temporary import permit. The applicant claims that the decision to forfeit those vehicles was tainted by gross unreasonableness and gross irrationality lending itself to being set aside on review. Consequent to such setting aside of the respondent’s decision, the applicant prays that the vehicles be released to it. More
The plaintiffs are a married couple, so too are the defendants. The two sets of couples are locked in a dispute over the financial implications of the demise of their short-lived business partnership. The business partnership which came into existence sometime in July 2020 went into a tailspin barely three months into its life before collapsing entirely. As between them the parties had two business concerns comprising a hardware store and a baby supplies shop.
The causes of the demise of the partnership are yet contested, suffice it to say that in the immediate aftermath thereof, the plaintiff’s instituted the... More
