The applicants were seeking the ejectment of all members of the Magopa tribe who are presently on the farm Zwartrand, save those members of the tribe who have the written permission of the second applicant to be there. The land in question was previously owned by the Magopa tribe and now the Government of the Republic of South Africa owns it. A rule nisi was issued.

The case concerns the constitutionality of statutory provisions that permit force to be used when carrying out an arrest. The applicants argued that the subsections of the Act should be read together as they were supplementing one another. The case was referred back to the High Court for resumption and conclusion of the criminal trial against the accused on the basis that section 49(2) of the said Act was constitutionally valid.

The respondent's husband was arrested and detained in terms of the Emergency Regulations proclaimed on 12 June 1986. The applicants were appealing against the order of the court that declared the arrest and detention of the respondent unlawful and wrong. The appeal was dismissed with costs including those occasioned by the employment of two counsels.

The respondents were appealing against the applicants' decision to set aside a part of the TAC (Total Allowable Catch). The respondents felt that the second applicant did not know what he was doing. The application was dismissed with costs including those of two counsel.

This is a leave to appeal application by the respondent against the applicants' decision. The respondent launched a proceeding in the Cape High Court seeking the decision of the applicants be reviewed and set aside. The application was successful and the court granted leave to appeal.

The applicants were seeking an order to interdict, restrain and prevent the respondents from dismissing or altering the terms and conditions of employment of any employee because the respondents suspect that the employee belongs or has belonged to the Union or taken part in the lawful activities of the Union. It was both agreed by the parties that the applicant would be recognised if it can show that it has more than 50% of respondent's employees.

The applicants were appealing to be reinstated back to their jobs. The applicants are the trade union and its members who were dismissed for not refusing to discuss with the respondent about issue relating to their leave and the Christmas bonus. The reinstatement order was granted.

This is the return day of the application in which the applicants sought an order for the ejectment of respondents who occupied the housing units illegally. The respondents were asked to show cause why they should not be evicted from the housing units. The respondents were ordered to vacate the premises with all their belongings and those who live with them.

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.

The applicant was seeking an order to restraining the first respondent from considering the appeal lodged with him by the second respondent against the refusal of an exemption by the applicant. The applicant is the industrial council for the furniture manufacturing industry and the respondents are minister of manpower and furniture manufacturers. The application was dismissed and the applicant ordered to pay the second respondent's costs excluding those incurred in connection with the matter.