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
Ahmed v Mazari and Others (21/5384) [2022] ZAGPJHC 812 (14 October 2022)
The High Court dismissed an application for transfer of property because the applicant failed to set out sufficient facts proving full payment of the purchase price.
Msunduzi Municipality v Gwala and Others (6620/2020) [2022] ZAKZPHC 18 (18 May 2022)
The applicant is the registered owner of the property, and the respondents’ occupation and erection of structures are unlawful. No lawful right to possession or occupation was conferred on the respondents, as there was no compliance with the Municipal Finance Management Act, Asset Transfer Regulations, or the Alienation of Land Act. Promises or negotiations by municipal officials do not override statutory requirements or confer enforceable rights. The applicant’s rights of ownership prevail, and the constitutional right to housing does not entitle the respondents to occupy the property unlawf…
Source excerpt
Flower Foundation Pretoria Homes for the Aged NPC v Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria and Others (942/2020) [2022] ZASCA 8; 2022 (6) SA 99 (SCA) (20 January 2022)
The SCA held that a housing development scheme covered the entire property, so selling part of it required 75% consent from life-right holders under s 4B.
Varachia v MEC Department of Local Government & Housing Gauteng (64978/14) [2017] ZAGPPHC 223 (26 May 2017)
The High Court dismissed an application for condonation under the Organ of State Act, finding no prospects of success in the underlying damages claim.
Mbombela Local Municipality v The Premier, Mpumalanga Province and Others (47407/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 674 (28 July 2016)
The court found that Condition B(viii) is a restriction on the alienation of the property, not merely its use. The language and context of the condition, as well as the existence of other conditions specifically addressing use, support this interpretation. The Administrator's powers under Section 2 of the Removal of Restrictions Act 84 of 1967 do not extend to the removal of restrictions on alienation. Therefore, the removal of Condition B(viii) by Proclamation No. 80 of 1983 was ultra vires and unlawful. The delay in bringing the application was satisfactorily explained, as the applicant onl…
Source excerpt
Mahlaba N.O v Greater Tzaneen Municipality (142/2016) [2016] ZALMPPHC 4 (24 June 2016)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish locus standi to bring the application on behalf of the Nkuna Traditional Council, as there was no evidence of authorisation by the council. The omission to cite the applicant in both personal and representative capacities was deemed fatal and could not be remedied at this stage. The court further held that the failure to join certain state institutions was not fatal, as their interest in the matter was not direct and substantial. Consequently, the application was struck off the roll with costs.
Source excerpt
Ndouvhada v Machaka Traditional Council and Others (50832/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 862 (14 August 2015)
The court confirmed an interim interdict, invalidated a later tribal resolution, upheld an earlier land-sale resolution, and ordered transfer of the property.
Booysen v Warren-Smith (CA 154/2011) [2013] ZAECGHC 28 (28 March 2013)
The appeal was dismissed because the trial court's findings of fact and credibility were not challenged and must be accepted. The evidence established a clear common intention between the parties that the property was to be acquired for the benefit of Bosazza and Maryna and developed for the local community. The written agreement did not reflect this intention due to a common mistake. The trial court was entitled to rectify the agreement to reflect the true consensus, even if the rectification was not in the precise terms pleaded, as long as it was consistent with the evidence. Vagueness in t…
Source excerpt
Du Plooy and Another v Du Plooy and Others (417/11) [2012] ZASCA 135; [2012] 4 All SA 239 (SCA) (27 September 2012)
The SCA held that Robert Du Plooy held the houses as nominee for his siblings and could not alienate them without consent; the transfer to the buyer was set aside.
Lephondo v Dihlabeng Local Municipality (7493/2008) [2009] ZAFSHC 99 (25 June 2009)
The court held that section 14 of the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act requires a municipal council to consider and approve the disposal of capital assets in a public meeting before any transfer or disposal can occur. The sale agreement between the applicant and respondent was concluded without such council approval and did not reference compliance with section 14. As a result, the agreement constituted a contract to commit an act made unlawful by statute and was therefore void. The power of attorney authorising transfer pursuant to the invalid agreement was likewise void. T…
Source excerpt
Explore more
