|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2016 |
|
|
Reported
Court narrows an overbroad protest interdict: unnamed crowds discharged, focused individual interdicts upheld.
Interdictory relief — protest action — limits of s 17 (peaceful assembly) — unlawful conduct (kidnapping, barricading, damage) not protected — orders against unnamed or unascertainable classes impermissibly vague — individual interdicts where specific involvement established.
|
1 December 2016 |
| November 2016 |
|
|
Court refused mandatory interdict compelling university to resume operations, deferring to university managerial discretion and reasonableness.
Higher education — specific performance/mandatory interdict to compel resumption of academic operations; judicial deference to university council/management; enforceability and perpetuity of broad court orders; balancing safety, disciplinary processes and protest rights; discretion to refuse specific performance where order would fetter fiduciary duties.
|
10 November 2016 |
| October 2016 |
|
|
Reported
Applicant refused admission due to dishonest, inconsistent accounts of an armed robbery and lack of fit-and-proper character.
Admission of attorneys — fit and proper person — effect of criminal convictions (armed robbery) and dishonesty — holistic assessment of character; TRC amnesty applications and relevance; duty of Law Society to investigate and assist court; role of amicus curiae.
|
28 October 2016 |
| June 2016 |
|
|
Reported
The respondent municipality and its manager were held responsible for sewage and waste management failures; a structural interdict was granted.
Municipal law — obligation to provide and maintain basic services (sewage, refuse) — contempt for breach of court order — structural/supervisory interdict as remedy for systemic municipal failures — locus and exhaustion required for environmental-authorisation relief — costs and de bonis propriis considerations.
|
15 June 2016 |
|
Speculative securitisation claims do not justify discovery or rescission of a consent order and fail to defeat creditor's rights.
Civil procedure — rescission of consent judgment — securitisation defence lacks prospects without proof; discovery in motion proceedings exceptional — Rule 30/Rule 35 — ostensible authority/estoppel where attorney compromises; execution against immovable property premature without attempt against movables.
|
3 June 2016 |