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
Mofiko v Mthophe and Others (2024/044182) [2025] ZAGPJHC 772 (7 August 2025)
Eviction application dismissed because the respondent’s occupation remained lawful under an extant sale agreement and no lawful termination was shown.
Spalding and Another v Androdox Proprietary Limited and Another (14057/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 70 (31 July 2025)
The court held that a temporary right-of-way servitude had lapsed after consolidation created alternative access to a public road through a registered panhandle.
Lisbon Developments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mhlongo and Others (Leave to Appeal) (1904/2023) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 64 (28 July 2025)
The High Court granted leave to appeal in a land and trust dispute concerning a community-owned trust, finding compelling reasons under section 17(1)(a)(iii).
Glenhazel Investment (Pty) Ltd v Barbaglia N.O and Others (2023/055003) [2025] ZAGPJHC 738 (25 July 2025)
The High Court referred a deposit dispute to trial after finding a material factual dispute over a trustee’s authority to bind a trust in a property sale.
Mohamed v Moosa and Others (44567/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 681 (2 July 2025)
Eviction and interdict applications failed after the court found a genuine factual dispute about occupation, payments, and the validity of a sale agreement.
Noormohamed v Wealthy JT Brothers (Pty) Ltd (049270/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 687 (27 June 2025)
Summary judgment was granted for payment of the purchase price under a deed of sale. The court rejected the defendant’s locus standi and Alienation of Land Act defences.
Muza and Another v Mokoena and Others (31542/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 585 (3 June 2025)
The court found that the applicants failed to prove the existence of a valid sale agreement for the property, as any sale of immovable property must be in writing and signed by the parties in terms of the Alienation of Land Act. The alleged oral agreement was invalid and unenforceable. The first respondent and her deceased husband held only a leasehold interest at the time of the purported sale and could not lawfully sell or transfer ownership. The applicant, being a foreign national, was ineligible for subsidised housing ownership under the applicable scheme. The improvements made by the app…
Source excerpt
Feltre Trust and Others v Middelvlei Tenacres Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/019326) [2025] ZAGPJHC 549 (26 May 2025)
The court found that the failure to attach the trustee resolution to the sale agreement or founding affidavit did not render the contract void, as the resolution was executed prior to the agreement and authority was not challenged until later. The agreement was validly concluded and cancelled, and the penalty clause invoked the Conventional Penalties Act, making proportionality a live issue. The referral to oral evidence on proportionality was within the court's discretion under Rule 6(5)(g) and did not violate the functus officio doctrine, as it was an interlocutory order. The respondents' c…
Source excerpt
Kok v Hill N.O and Others (2024/031287) [2025] ZAGPJHC 492 (20 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a review aimed at overturning trustees’ repudiation of a property sale after insolvency, finding no procedural irregularity and no vulnerable purchaser status.
Chuene v Favours Cathedral Church (Appeal) (HCAA30/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 95 (14 May 2025)
The court found that the sale agreement between the appellant and respondent was valid and enforceable. The appellant admitted to both the conclusion of the sale agreement and receipt of the purchase price. The statutory provisions of the Alienation of Land Act invoked by the appellant, particularly section 29A, were intended to protect purchasers, not sellers. The appellant, as seller, could not rely on these provisions to challenge the validity of the contract. The agreement was in writing, signed by both parties, and contained all essential elements required by law. The court a quo correct…
Source excerpt
Explore more
