LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback

Law
Cite


Cases Referring to this Case | Law Reform Reports Referring to this Case | Law Journal Articles Referring to this Case | Legislation Cited | Cases and Articles Cited

Help

Kallos and Sons (Pty) Ltd v Mavromati   flag  3

1946 WLD 312
Witwatersrand Local Division Reports
South Africa - Transvaal

Cases Referring to this Case

Case Name Citation(s) Court Jurisdiction Date †  Full Text Citation Index
Purpose of rule 4 is to provide for a mechanism by which relative certainty can be obtained that service has been effected upon a defendant If certain minimum standards are complied with as set out in the rule, then the assumption is made that the service was sufficient to reach the defendant's attention and his failure to take steps is not due to the fact that he does not have knowledge of the summons The converse is not true — namely that if service is not effected as required by the rule, the service is not effective — in that the purpose for which service is required was fulfilled, namely the defendant came to know of the summons The rules, as was pointed out by Roux J in United Reflective Converters (Pty) Ltd v Levine, 1 988 SA 460 South Africa 10 May 2016 LexisNexis flag 2
Alam v Minister of Home Affairs (3414/2010) [2012] ZAECPEHC 12; 2012 5 SA 626 Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth South Africa 16 Feb 2012 SAFLII flag 1
Kahan v Lidchi , Kahan v Clara Kahan ((P) A 329/99) [2000] NAHC 19 High Court of Namibia Namibia 30 May 2000 SAFLII flag

LawCite: Privacy | Disclaimers | Conditions of Use | Acknowledgements | Feedback