This is a case of land transfer within the Venda Central Prison to its rightful owners.

The applicant was seeking an order condoning her imposition of shorter time limits for the filing of affidavits than those prescribed by the court and declaring Decrees 5 and 10 of 1992 to be null, void and of no force and effect. This is an inquest into the death of Guzana's husband at Bisho in 1991. There's no judgment.

The applicant was seeking an order declaring the by-laws null and void. The applicant is the resident of Atteridgeville. These by - laws relate to the making of charges for services and use of facilities within the first respondent's area of jurisdiction. The application was dismissed with costs including those of two counsel.

The applicant was seeking relief from the court to bring those implicated in the killing of her husband to justice. The applicant's husband was assaulted by the members of the army and later died. The application succeeded.

This application rose out of alleged unfair labour practice of the fourth respondent towards the third respondent. The third respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application and the application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant was appealing against the respondent's decision to evict her from the property she occupied. The applicant occupied the property together with her four children. The appeal succeeded.

The appeal was against the judgment in which the detention order was set aside in respect of the applicant's son and granted costs. The appeal succeeded with costs including the costs of two counsel and the order of the court was changed to that of dismissing the application with costs.

The applicants were seeking an order to declare that the State President has gone beyond his powers and the meaning of the regulations under attack was not sufficiently certain to enable the persons affected by them to know what is required of them. The applicant is the most important anti - apartheid organisation. The relief sought was granted. The respondents jointly and severally were to pay the applicants' costs including the costs of three counsels.

The applicant was seeking relief against the second respondent's refusal to grant the applicant rights to visit the detainees. The applicant is a company which speciality is offering education through correspondence. The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicants were seeking as a matter of urgency, an order declaring their arrest and detention unlawful and that the first and second respondents to release the applicants from custody and detention. The applicants were also praying for an order as to costs. The application was succesful.