Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
De Jongh v Philippides and Others (008709/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1308 (14 November 2023)
The High Court held that a conveyancer who stole purchase funds acted for the purchaser, not the seller, and dismissed the purchaser's specific-performance claim.
Agu v Krige and Others (20763/2017) [2019] ZAWCHC 46 (28 March 2019)
The court found that the deed of sale expressly required the applicant to pay the purchase price to the first respondent's nominated conveyancer, who was appointed by the first respondent and acted as his agent for receiving payment. Payment to the conveyancer was therefore equivalent to payment to the seller, and the applicant discharged her contractual obligation by making such payment. The misappropriation of funds by the conveyancer did not affect the applicant's entitlement to transfer, as she had no control over the process after payment and had complied with all contractual requirement…
Source excerpt
Laniyan v Negota SSH (Gauteng) Incorporated and Others (09/35083) [2013] ZAGPJHC 128; [2013] 2 All SA 309 (GSJ) (20 February 2013)
The court found that the first respondent, as the seller's attorneys, acted as agent for the applicant by accepting and holding the purchase price in trust, establishing a contractual relationship. The applicant is therefore a creditor of the first respondent. Section 53(b) of the Companies Act and section 23(1)(a) of the Attorneys Act impose joint and several liability on directors for debts contracted during their periods of office. The respondents' ignorance of the misappropriation does not absolve them of liability. The applicant's payment to the seller's attorneys discharged his obligati…
Source excerpt
Mills NO v Hoosen (A5007/07) [2008] ZAGPHC 439; 2010 (2) SA 316 (W) (19 December 2008)
The High Court held that a land sale agreement was invalid because the true seller was not identified on the face of the document as required by statute.
Explore more
