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 an application to direct the respondent to restore and adhere to the labour relations. The applicant is a company specialising in building and the respondent is a trade union representing workers in the building industry. The respondent was ordered to restore and adhere to the labour relations position between applicant and its employees and no order was made to costs.

The applicants intend making an application to the court for an order to declare that the police of the Republic of Ciskei had no power of arrest or detention in Mgwali, Mgwali falls under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Republic of South Africa and that the Government of Ciskei has no law authority to exercise administrative or other powers within Mgwali. The applicants are the residents of Mgwali. The relief sought by the applicants was granted.

The applicant was seeking an order directing the respondents to release her son from their custody and control, alternatively directing the respondents to produce him before the Court on a fixed date. The applicant is the mother of one of the three men who were arrested by the police at the Port Elizabeth airport. The application was dismissed with costs including of two counsel.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the court. Respondents were accused of five counts including terrorism. The appeal was allowed and the order of the magistrate refusing bail was set aside.

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.

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 two applicants were arrested and detained by the police in terms of Section 50 (1) of the Internal Security Act no. 74 of 1982. They were contending whether their detention was legal or not. The applications were dismissed with costs including the fees of two counsel.

This is an application in which eight applicants, being relatives of certain detainees, claim as a matter of urgency that this Court should declare the detention orders issued by the second respondent unlawful and the detainees be released forthwith. The application was dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicants jointly and severally.