Scholtz v Unterhalter and Another
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
3 practice notes
-
Thompson v Stofberg
...J.A., in concurring, referred to Shearer v Estate Shearer and Others (1911 AD 675). BEYERS, J.A., and DE VILLIERS, J.A., concurred. 1934 AD p528 Wessels, After argument on an application for security to be dispensed with, WESSELS, C.J.: Mr. Grobler has asked us to dispense with security. No......
-
Venmei Beleggings (Edms) Bpk v Bue
...he relied on the provisions of s 87 (d) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 and the case of Scholtz v Unterhalter and Sidersky 1934 AD 528 at F Mr Rosenzweig, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, contended, however, that this procedure would be improper in the circumstances since ......
-
Venmei Beleggings (Edms) Bpk v Bue
...he relied on the provisions of s 87 (d) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 and the case of Scholtz v Unterhalter and Sidersky 1934 AD 528 at F Mr Rosenzweig, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, contended, however, that this procedure would be improper in the circumstances since ......
3 cases
-
Thompson v Stofberg
...J.A., in concurring, referred to Shearer v Estate Shearer and Others (1911 AD 675). BEYERS, J.A., and DE VILLIERS, J.A., concurred. 1934 AD p528 Wessels, After argument on an application for security to be dispensed with, WESSELS, C.J.: Mr. Grobler has asked us to dispense with security. No......
-
Venmei Beleggings (Edms) Bpk v Bue
...he relied on the provisions of s 87 (d) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 and the case of Scholtz v Unterhalter and Sidersky 1934 AD 528 at F Mr Rosenzweig, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, contended, however, that this procedure would be improper in the circumstances since ......
-
Venmei Beleggings (Edms) Bpk v Bue
...he relied on the provisions of s 87 (d) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 and the case of Scholtz v Unterhalter and Sidersky 1934 AD 528 at F Mr Rosenzweig, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, contended, however, that this procedure would be improper in the circumstances since ......