Explore 6 related cases • Click to navigate
Cited for the principles regarding costs in constitutional litigation.
Applied for the principle that execution is incidental to the judicial process and requires judicial oversight.
Cited for the principle that this Court may not render a judgment based on an incorrect application of the law just because all parties agreed to it.
Applied for the principle that judicial oversight of the execution process is mandatory, particularly when a debtor's security of tenure is at risk.
ABSA attempted to distinguish the facts in University of Stellenbosch LAC, arguing the credit provider in that case engaged in reprehensible conduct, unlike in…
Applied the principle that compliance with sections 129 and 130 are jurisdictional prerequisites to debt enforcement, and courts' adjudicative power is…
Cited for the constitutionally conformant interpretation principle applied in Hyundai.
Cited for the proviso that constitutional interpretation must be such that it can reasonably be ascribed to the section.
Cited for the principle that an order of legislative invalidity ordinarily operates from the time of the order only (prospectively).
Cited for the remedy of notional severance where an invalidity caused by legislative omission is cured by the device of reading in.
Applied for the principle that judicial oversight permits a magistrate to consider all the relevant circumstances of a case to determine whether there is good…
Cited for the proposition that where a statutory provision is capable of more than one reasonable construction, one which would lead to constitutional…
Cited for the principle that courts must prefer interpretations of legislation that fall within constitutional bounds over those that do not, provided such an…
Cited for the principle that an order of legislative invalidity ordinarily operates prospectively.
Cited for the interpretation of section 129(1)(a) of the National Credit Act as a 'gateway' provision requiring mandatory pre-litigation notice and the need to…
Cited for the distinction between costs on attorney and client scale and attorney and own client scale.
This Court described the judicial process and execution as separate, consecutive processes, with execution commencing after the judicial process has ended.