This is an application for condonation and extension of time within which to note an appeal made in terms of r 39 (4) as read with r 43 (3) of the Supreme Court, 2018. This matter was set down for a virtual hearing on 7 March 2024. Although the applicant had filed heads of argument, on the date and time of the hearing, she did not connect onto the IECMS system. Soon after the session started the IECMS system had a partial connectivity breakdown. While it was possible to see the party before me the sound was mute and there... More
This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard on 10 January 2024 and it was dismissed it in its entirety in an ex tempore judgment.The appellant pleaded not guilty. In his defence he explained that he was not denying the charge but this was a fight between him and the complainant. After hearing evidence from three state witnesses the court a quo dismissed the appellant’s story and was satisfied the witnesses were credible. There was no fight but the complainant was assaulted with unknown weapons and bricks in an attempt to rob him. The savage attack... More
On 12 November 2022 the appellant hired the respondent as a bursar. They signed a contract of employment. It was a fixed term contract which was to expire on 31December 2024. On 7 August 2023 the appellant terminated the contract of employment in terms of clause 9.2 of the contract through a letter More
This is a purported appeal against the whole judgment of the Supreme Court (“the court a quo”) setting aside a decision of the High Court which had nullified an audit report authored by the second respondent at the instance of the first respondent. The High Court had found that the second respondent was an administrative authority for purposes of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] (“the Administrative Justice Act or simply the AJA”) and that the audit report it had produced was consequently reviewable. The Court further found that the report was not only biased but that the auditors who... More
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) handed down on 04 September 2023. The court a quo dismissed an application by the appellant for the review of the decision by the respondent’s Commissioner General of 8 March 2023 declaring a consignment belonging to the appellant forfeited to the State. More
The applicant and the respondents have previously been involved in litigation over mining claims known as Cleveland II, Cleveland 13 and Cleveland. In case number HC 2565/22 the applicant who was the 1st respondent therein had judgment granted against him wherein he was divested of his claim to the mining claims. More
