Scribd
Upload
180 views4 pages

06 June 2022 - Unopposed Motion Before Dippernaar J

This document lists 44 unopposed motion cases scheduled to be heard on 6 June 2022 before Judge Dippenaar in the Gauteng Local Division of the Johannesburg High Court. It provides the case number, parties, attorneys' contact details and case type classification for each matter.

Uploaded by

installment payment
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
180 views4 pages

06 June 2022 - Unopposed Motion Before Dippernaar J

This document lists 44 unopposed motion cases scheduled to be heard on 6 June 2022 before Judge Dippenaar in the Gauteng Local Division of the Johannesburg High Court. It provides the case number, parties, attorneys' contact details and case type classification for each matter.

Uploaded by

installment payment
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE

(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

UNOPPOSED MOTION ROLL FOR 6 JUNE 2022.

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE: DIPPENAAR J JUGDES’ SECRETARY: [email protected]

1. ABSOLUTE SERVICE CENTRE (PTY) LTD VS MICHIGAN EQUIPMENT 2019/18287 [email protected] GB


(PTY) LTD
2. THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA VS MICHAEL GERAD 2021/32272 [email protected] O
ROFAIL
3. FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED VS RADEBE J 2021/23566 [email protected] D

4. KOOSHEN NAIDOO AND 1 OTHER VS KHOLEKA NKOMBI AND 2 2022/3947 [email protected] EP


OTHERS
5. SB GUARANTEE VS SEPHOTI 2021/34596 [email protected] D

6. NEDBANK LIMITED VS. LEKWADU; M.S. 2021/37400 [email protected] D

Practitioners are advised to have their case types properly classified (refer to paragraph 96 of C/D) in date requests forms & computerized notices of set
down. No case type must be classified as ‘’Other” without specifying in line with the Uniform Rules of Court.
7. KESAVA NAIDOO VS ANAND NAIDOO AND 1 OTHER 2022/00538 [email protected] EV

8. ABSA VS CAPELL JW 2019/30214 [email protected] D

9. NICOLAI ANDRE OBO PB RODOLO VS ROAD ACCIDENT FUND 2018/30626 [email protected] O

10. RHULANI CAROLINE CHAUKEE VS DEPARTMENT OF HOME 2021/41688 [email protected] O


AFFAIRS & ANOTHER
11. NEDBANK LIMITED VS. MBANDZI LOGISTICS AND SOLUTIONS 2022/10843 [email protected]
(PTY) LTD + 1 D
12. CHANGING TIDES 17 (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED N.O. VS MATOME 2021/43304 [email protected] D
MICHAEL MANGENA AND THANDI GOODNESS MANGENA
13. NEDBANK LIMITED VS. NDLOVU; P.P. 2022/10838 [email protected] D

14. PREVANCE CAPITAL (PTY) LIMITED VS BUTLER MOHAPI 2020/33982 [email protected] T


ATTORNEYS AND FOUR OTHERS
15. SAFFY, GREGORY MARTIN 2022/8537 [email protected] GF

16. OPC PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD VS SIXHIBA SIVUYILE AND TWO 2022/12721 [email protected] EP
OTHERS
17. FIRSTRAND AUTO RECEIVABLES (RF) LTD VS MR DANIEL 2021/37062 [email protected] D
MOSELEKATSE
18. CHANTELL TIMM INC V ROYAL KINGS SCHOOL ROODEPOORT 2022/13379 [email protected] O
(PTY) LTD
19. BARNARD MARTHINUS CHRISTOFFEL VS SANET KRUGER N.O. 2010/39268 [email protected] O

20. NEDBANK LIMITED VS MKHALIPHI; N 2021/71093 [email protected] D

21. WESBANK , A DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED VS MR 2020/32966 [email protected] D


MOKETE PETER MOKOENA
22. BODY CORPORATE STANFORD GARDENS NO.916/2004 VS TATI 2020/3264 [email protected] AV
MARIA FUTI WILSON
23. NEDBANK LIMITED VS. GRACA; P.S.G. 2022/10837 [email protected] D

Practitioners are advised to have their case types properly classified (refer to paragraph 96 of C/D) in date requests forms & computerized notices of set
down. No case type must be classified as ‘’Other” without specifying in line with the Uniform Rules of Court.
24. NDYAMARA AW N.O. & 4 OTHERS VS OLOENVIRON (PTY) LTD. 2021/41597 [email protected] FL

25. THAPELO JULY MALINGA VS THANDO NOMVULA MNISI 2021/50880 [email protected] O

26. THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED VS MJ 2022/3146 [email protected] D


MOCOANCOENG
27. WHITFIELD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD VS THE BODY 2021/46561 [email protected] O
CORPORATE OF THE WILLOWS ESTATE
28. TSHABALALA, JOEL SIBUSISO VS MOOKO, LERE 2021/2097 [email protected] O

29. SOUTHERN SPREAD TRADING (PTY) LTD V JAMES COHEN AND 2022 / 00696 [email protected] EV
OTHERS
30. FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED VS MOHATLI MM 2021/31897 [email protected] O

31. INVESTEC BANK LIMITED VS KEABETSWE PORTIA MOSAKA 2022/10854 [email protected] O

32. CAPITAL PROPFUND (PTY) LTD VS WDP GROUP (PTY) LTD 2022/12264 [email protected] O

33. THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED VS 2021/2763 [email protected] D


GOITSIMODIMO GILBERT MOTHIBI

34. THE STANDARD BANK OF SA LIMITED VS LEWELLYN DAVID 2020/23179 [email protected] D


PETERSEN AND OTHER

35. THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED VS AZZAAM 2020/34597 [email protected] D
TAREEQ BVULANI & LILIANA KARINA BORGES BVULANI

36. UTILITY DISCONNECTION: CHRISELLA GARDENS BODY 2022/12756 [email protected] EU


CORPORATE VS MUNYARADZI CHIHWENDU & NYARAI TARIRO
KAKORA

Practitioners are advised to have their case types properly classified (refer to paragraph 96 of C/D) in date requests forms & computerized notices of set
down. No case type must be classified as ‘’Other” without specifying in line with the Uniform Rules of Court.
37. FARMPROPS 22 (PTY) LTD (REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2020/33537 [email protected] EU
1997/016159/07) VS MORUPISI, E.N. AND 33 OTHERS

38. STANDARD BANK VS MASETE FRANK MAMADI 2021/46850 [email protected] O

39. NEDBANK LTD VS MONTAGUE M E 2019/13022 [email protected] AV

40. NEDBANK LTD VS LINGANI L 2021/40714 [email protected] AV

41. NEDBANK LTD VS MAGADLA M E & M O 2021/40715 [email protected] AV

42. NEDBANK LTD VS ZOPICK W 2022/3925 [email protected] AV

43. NEDBANK LTD VS JAN D I & J G 2021/39980 [email protected] O

44. NEDBANK LTD VS ERUMOLE S I 2022/5686 [email protected] O

Practitioners are advised to have their case types properly classified (refer to paragraph 96 of C/D) in date requests forms & computerized notices of set
down. No case type must be classified as ‘’Other” without specifying in line with the Uniform Rules of Court.

You might also like