The applicant was seeking relief against the respondent to consider the applicant's application for a social grant. Judgment unknown as there are other court documents missing.

The applicant applied for the confirmation order that the section 118(1) was constitutionally invalid as it permitted arbitrary deprivation of property. The applicant is a property owner concerned with the constitutional validity of laws that in effect burden owners in relation to consumption charges for water and electricity supplied to other people who occupy their immovable property. The appeal succeeded and there was no order to costs.

This is the return day of Rule nisi. The issue that is being contested is the validity of the purported exemption granted in terms of section 28 A of the Environment Conservation Act No 73 of 1989. The Rule nisi granted in the court had to be confirmed. The first respondent to pay the costs of the application.

The applicant was seeking an order interdicting the respondents from distributing, selling, marketing or making available to any person the version of the book "Kerzner Unauthorised". During June 2000, it came to the applicant's knowledge that the respondents intended publishing a revised version of the book. The respondents were interdicted from publishing, distributing, selling, marketing or making available to any person. They were also ordered to pay the application costs and of the two counsel.

The appeal was against a decision of the Cape High Court which found that the applicant was liable in damages for the wrongful and negligent conduct of the then provincial Minister of Agriculture, Planning and Tourism. The applicant is the Premier of the Western Cape who designated the provincial Minister of Agriculture, Planning and Tourism as the competent authority to administer the Act in that province. The appeal was upheld with costs including of two counsel.

The State was applying for condonation of non-compliance with the court's rules regarding its application for the change of legal questions which change by the trial. The respondent was charged in the Transvaal Provincial Division on 67 charges including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, fraud, theft, possession of drugs and trafficking in drugs. The State's application was dismissed.

The applicant was seeking an order to declare the stoppage of the applicant's social grant unlawful, null and void. Judgment unknown as there are other court documents missing.

The applicant was seeking leave to appeal directly to the Court against the High Court's decision not to deal with the constitutionality of the impugned provision. The applicant, the Islamic Unity Convention runs a community radio station known as Radio 786 under a broadcasting licence issued to it by the first respondent. The application for leave to appeal directly to the Court was granted and no order to costs.

This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Labour Appeal Court dismissing an appeal by the applicant. The respondent outsourced services and this decision was bound to result in the loss of employment for members of the applicant. The applicant was granted leave to appeal.