The applicants were seeking the reinstatement of 136 of its members. The applicants are the trade union and its members who were dismissed for taking part in a strike for increased wage. The application was dismissed and no order as to costs was made.

The applicants were seeking an order to stop the respondents from evicting them. The land in dispute was bought by Pixley ka Isaka Seme in 1912 and it was divided into 310 plots which were sold to various individuals. In the early 1960's, government officials told the Driefontein community that they were going to be removed because Driefontein constitutes a "Black spot". There was a community resistance to that and it has continued till to the present day. The Heyshope Dam was planned and 84 Driefontein plots fall within the "purchase line" for the dam. Most of the court case documents are missing.

The applicant seeks an order declaring any march or gathering within the magisterial district of Zwelitsha without the requisite permission in terms of Section 43 of the National Security Act, 1982, to be unlawful.

The applicants seek an order ordering the first respondent to provide the applicants with basic temporary shelter, basic water and sanitation services and access to sufficient food, nutrition and health care services. The applicant is a group of about 30 000 people who were forcibly evicted from a portion of the remaining extent of the Farm Driefontein 85, IR, known as the Chris Hani 2 Informal Settlement.

The respondent in this appeal was detained in terms of emergency regulations. In April 1993 he received legal advice to the effect that the regulations under which he had been detained were invalid for being in conflict with Ciskei's Bill of Rights. He was advised to apply to court for an order declaring section 48 (1) of the Police Act to be unlawful for being in conflict with Ciskei's Bill of Rights. The appeal was upheld.

The applicant applied for execution of the judgment should leave to appeal be granted to the respondent. The court ruled that Joseph Katofa be released from detention immediately. The costs of the application were to be costs in the appeal.

The applicant was seeking relief on behalf of its members for reinstatement and payment for the period its members have been out of work. The applicant is a trade union representing its members who are the employees of the respondent dismissed from their employment. The application was dismissed.

This is an application for relief sought in the Notice of Motion, for a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show why orders should not be made declaring that the detention of the applicants was unlawful. The detention of Father Cornelius was declared unlawful and the respondents were directed to pay 50% of the applicants' costs jointly and severally.

The applicant was seeking relief against the respondent. The applicant was employed and stayed at the respondent's farm. He was instructed by the respondent to leave the farm and upon failing to do so, the respondent assaulted him and forceably removed him from the farm.

The applicant applied for an order reviewing and setting aside his conviction and sentence. He was summoned to appear before the court of the Western Tembuland Regional Authority at Qamata on a charge of contempt of court and failed to appear. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant in the Western Tembuland Regional Authority Court on 11 September 1997 were set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application.