South Africa Case Law

Eden Crescent Share Block Ltd v Olive Marketing CC and Others (1075/2020)

Eden Crescent Share Block Ltd v Olive Marketing CC and Others (1075/2020) [2022] ZASCA 177; 2023 (3) SA 476 (SCA) (9 December 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1075/2020

Judges

Dambuza ADP, Molemela JA, Plasket JA, Basson AJJA, Siwendu AJJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a parking servitude over Eden’s property was valid as a general servitude and that statutory approval requirements did not apply.

• Servitude Validity
• Vagueness In Servitude
• Share Blocks Control Act
• Housing Development Schemes For Retired Persons Act
• Alienation Of Property
• Registration Of Servitude

Matini v Matini and Others (20991/2021)

Matini v Matini and Others (20991/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 218 (23 March 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20991/2021

Judge

Lazarus AJ

The High Court held that a property sale by one spouse without written consent was valid because the buyers could not reasonably know consent was missing.

• Matrimonial Property Act
• Alienation Of Property
• Community Of Property
• Written Consent Requirement
• Transfer Of Immovable Property
• Matrimonial-property-act

Strauss and Others v Van der Walt N.O and Others (87126/2019)

Strauss and Others v Van der Walt N.O and Others (87126/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 767 (21 December 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

87126/2019

Judge

N P Mngqibisa-Thusi

The High Court granted an interim interdict stopping transfer of an estate property, finding the auction sale irregular because required consent had not been obtained.

• Interim Interdict
• Administration Of Deceased Estates
• Curatorship
• Alienation Of Property
• Will And Testament
• Executor Powers

Abdul v Williams and Others (CA227/2018)

Abdul v Williams and Others (CA227/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 103 (29 October 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA227/2018

Judges

E Revelas, J W Eksteen, M Rusa

The court held that the sale and transfer of the state-subsidised property within the eight-year restriction period, without the written consent of the relevant Provincial Housing Department, was strictly prohibited by section 10A of the Housing Act. Both the initial sale agreement and the subsequent lease agreement between the appellant and the first and second respondents were concluded in contravention of the statutory restriction and were therefore null and void. The appellant did not acquire any rights in the property, either as purchaser or tenant. The subsequent sale and transfer to th…

Source excerpt

• Housing Act Section 10a
• State Subsidised Property
• Restrictive Conditions
• Nullity Of Sale
• Alienation Of Property

Mackey NO and Another v Snyman NO and Others (3302/2016)

Mackey NO and Another v Snyman NO and Others (3302/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 80 (6 July 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

3302/2016

Judge

N G Beshe

The High Court granted an interim interdict stopping the respondents from alienating or mortgaging land, pending an action for specific performance or damages.

• Interim Interdict
• Specific Performance
• Sale Of Land
• Alienation Of Property
• Prima Facie Right
• Interim-interdict

Tlhagwane v Sedcom Incorporated (Association not for gain) and Others (13726/2013)

Tlhagwane v Sedcom Incorporated (Association not for gain) and Others (13726/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 274 (5 September 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

13726/2013

Judge

Baqwa

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a real threat or infringement of his rights as a member of the church. The objective facts, including payment of the deposit and provision of guarantees by the purchaser, demonstrated that the property would not be transferred without compensation. The applicant's interpretation of the resolution was incorrect, and there was no basis for the relief sought. Consequently, the requirements for a final interdict were not met, and the application was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Church Property Dispute
• Interpretation Of Resolution
• Alienation Of Property

Mkhize and Another v Mabija NO (782/1998)

Mkhize and Another v Mabija NO (782/1998) [2011] ZAKZDHC 42 (5 May 2011)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

782/1998

Judge

Radebe

The court found that the marriage between the Defendant and Sangqwane, contracted in 1975, was governed by the Black Administration Act and did not result in community of property, as no declaration to that effect was made. The decree of divorce did not order a transfer of ownership of the property to the Defendant, nor did it constitute a redistribution order under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act. The Defendant retained only a personal right of occupation, not ownership. The property was registered in Sangqwane's name, and he was entitled to alienate it. The Plaintiffs, as bona fide purchase…

Source excerpt

• Ownership Of Immovable Property
• Marriage Regimes
• Divorce Orders
• Deeds Registry
• Alienation Of Property

Sandton Civic Precinct (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg and Another (458/2007)

Sandton Civic Precinct (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg and Another (458/2007) [2008] ZASCA 104; 2009 (1) SA 317 (SCA) ; [2009] 1 All SA 291 (SCA) (22 September 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

458/2007

Judges

Farlam, Cameron, Jafta, Mlambo, Cachalia

The SCA held that the applicant lacked standing to enforce rights allegedly awarded to a consortium, because it did not show authority, cession, or a legal link to the consortium.

• Legal Standing
• Consortium Rights
• Alienation Of Property
• Administrative Action
• Review Of Council Resolution
• Legal-standing

Bauti and Another v Ngceshe NO and Others (1008/07)

Bauti and Another v Ngceshe NO and Others (1008/07) [2007] ZAECHC 146 (23 November 2007)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

1008/07

Judge

Kroon

The court found that the applicants satisfied the requirements for rescission of the order granted on 13 February 2007. The applicants raised a bona fide defence with prima facie prospects of success, specifically that the sale of the property to the Trust was invalid due to the absence of the first applicant's written consent, as required by the Matrimonial Property Act. The evidence indicated that the transaction was conducted without proper consultation or mandate, and the applicants were not wilful or unreasonable in failing to oppose the original proceedings. The court accepted that the…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Matrimonial Property Act
• Alienation Of Property
• Consent In Community Of Property
• Fraudulent Conduct

Hawkes v Hawkes and Another (713/02 , ECJ244/2002)

Hawkes v Hawkes and Another (713/02 , ECJ244/2002) [2006] ZAECHC 31; 2007 (2) SA 100 (SE) (6 July 2006)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

EL 244/2002

Judge

Leach

The High Court held that a wife was not bound by counsel’s unauthorised undertaking not to transfer sold property, but granted an interim interdict pending related divorce litigation.

• Interim Interdict
• Mandate Of Counsel
• Divorce Proceedings
• Accrual System
• Alienation Of Property
• Interim-interdict