The applicants were seeking relief against their dismissal at work. The applicants, a customer support clerk and a library services supervisor were accused of theft and both dismissed from work. The court ordered the respondent to reinstate the applicants.

The applicants were seeking relief for being unlawfully and unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The respondent was ordered to reinstate the applicants on terms and conditions no less favourable than those prevailing on the 16th of May 1985 and no order was made as to costs.

The applicants were seeking an order to declare their eviction unlawful. The applicants have lived on the farm Blaaukrantz in the district of Weenen for some years and the owner was now evicting them. The respondent was interdicted from unlawfully damaging or destroying any structural property owned or occupied by first applicant, rebuild the huts and fences demolished by him and pay the costs of the application.

The applicant sought an order declaring the conditions of release to be invalid and that the costs of suit including the costs of two counsel be paid by the second respondent. The application succeeded to the limited extent that the fourth condition of release imposed by the second respondent on the applicant was declared void.

This is the application by the parents of the detainees declaring the arrest and detention of their children wrongful and unlawful. The applicants' children were detained under the State of Emergency. The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicants were seeking an order to evict the respondents from a refuse dump. The applicants are the authorities in the Office of Community Services, Western Cape and the respondents are squatters who have settled on a refuse dump owned by the local authority in the Cape Peninsula. Relief was granted against the respondents.

The applicant was seeking an order to declare the behavior of the respondent unlawful and also to restrain the first and second respondents from instigating, calling for and organizing the strike. The applicant is an explosives and chemical speciality company which is being threatened by the respondent with a strike. The application was dismissed with costs.

These two æTerrorism' cases were substantively the same. The original 22 (Samson Ndou et al) who had been charged with terrorism, alternatively forwarding the aims of the ANC, were found not guilty in February 1970, discharged and immediately rearrested, and charged again together with Benjamin Ramotse who had been arrested in Botswana in 1968 (Benjamin Ramotse et al).á30f 1969/1970

In the case of the second trial Ramotse made a plea that his arrest was in violation of international law, the others including Samson Ndou made a plea that they had already been acquitted on the same charge. (Their plea was successful, Ramotse's unsuccessful).

The applicants were seeking an order to declare that the Seleka Tribe were entitled to convene a meeting of their tribe in the area of Beauty in the district of Vaalwater, Transvaal. The applicants are nine members of the Seleka Tribe against the respondents and representing the Seleka Tribe. The case was dismissed with costs including those of the two counsel.

The applicant was seeking special leave to appeal to the court from the order of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The applicant was viciously attacked and injured by Francois Coetzee who was later arrested and sentenced to twelve and half years. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Cape High Court against the respondent for negligence. The application for special leave was granted with costs.