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
Thema v Mathonsi (HCA36/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 78 (30 July 2024)
Appeal against absolution from the instance upheld after the High Court found the plaintiff had led enough evidence to require the trial to continue.
Roxsure Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd v Tracetec (Pty) Ltd (21/34177) [2023] ZAGPJHC 937 (29 May 2023)
The High Court discharged an urgent rule nisi and dismissed an interdict application where the applicant failed to prove valid termination, unfair competition, or a clear right.
Terra Graphics (Pty) Ltd t/a Terra Works v MEC: Department of Police, Road and Transport Free State Provincial Governement and Another (3489/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 11 (7 February 2013)
The court held that the applicant could claim directly from the first respondent because the project manager acted on its behalf, despite the intermediary payment structure.
Joint Stock Company Varvarinskoye v Absa Bank Ltd. and Others (164/07) [2008] ZASCA 35; [2008] 3 All SA 130 (SCA); 2008 (4) SA 287 (SCA) (28 March 2008)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant had proved an entitlement to the funds appropriated by Absa from account 1313. The funds were deposited for the specific purpose of paying MDM and its subcontractors, with withdrawals subject to formalities that excluded control by the sixth respondent. Absa was aware of the source and purpose of the funds and had agreed to warehouse the money for the appellant. The sixth respondent and its liquidators never asserted any claim to the funds. In these circumstances, Absa was not entitled to apply set-off against the funds, as none of its debto…
Source excerpt
Watson v Sachs and Another (647/1992) [1994] ZASCA 82; 1994 (3) SA 655 (AD); [1994] 2 All SA 419 (A) (27 May 1994)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant was not obliged to account to the first respondent for the proceeds of the BMW sale unless the mandates between the parties expressly or impliedly created such a duty. The court found that the respondents' affidavits did not establish the terms of the mandates with sufficient clarity to impose such an obligation. The appellant's version, which was not properly contradicted, indicated that he was instructed to sell the vehicle on behalf of the second respondent and to pay the proceeds to him. The court rejected the respondents' submissions re…
Source excerpt
Explore more
