Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2012] ZAGPPHC 308

Nurcha Finance Company (Pty) Ltd v Mahlaku Mosebo Contractors CC and Another (A174/12)

Nurcha Finance Company (Pty) Ltd v Mahlaku Mosebo Contractors CC and Another (A174/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 308 (29 November 2012)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
A174/12
Judges
Tuchten, M Mphaga

The High Court held that the written loan agreement clearly limited the Paymaster's agency to the specific purpose of amending the Actual Costs Breakdown Schedule, and did not authorize the Paymaster to act as agent for the appellant in making payments. There was no evidence that the appellant had conferred broader authority on the Paymaster outside the agreement. The magistrate erred in finding otherwise. The court further held that the pre-trial agreement limiting the issues for trial was binding on the parties and should have been given effect, regardless of whether the conference was held…

Source excerpt

  • Agency In Contract
  • Suretyship Validity
  • Pre Trial Agreements
  • Parol Evidence Rule
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [1985] ZASCA 22

Baker v Probert (228/1983)

Baker v Probert (228/1983) [1985] ZASCA 22; [1985] 2 All SA 263 (A) (7 May 1985)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
228/1983
Judges
Corbett, Kotzé, Viljoen, Hoexter, Botha

The court held that York Estate was the agent of the defendant for the purpose of receiving payment of the purchase price. The contract expressly stipulated that payment was to be made to York Estate, and this operated as a discharge of the plaintiff's obligation to the defendant. The mechanism requiring York Estate to hold the funds in trust until delivery of the share certificates did not alter the agency relationship. Upon cancellation of the contract due to the defendant's breach, the plaintiff was entitled to restitution from the defendant, irrespective of York Estate's insolvency. The d…

Source excerpt

  • Agency In Contract
  • Restitution After Cancellation
  • Stakeholder Vs Agent
  • Specific Performance
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.