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
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Maree N.O and Others (6038/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 172 (24 May 2024)
The High Court enforced a settlement agreement against the Maree trust and Goldensands, rejected duress and prematurity defences, and dismissed the counter-application.
Madi Trading (Pty) Ltd v Capital Propfund (Pty) Ltd & another (1876/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 133 (11 May 2021)
Urgent application for declaratory and interdictory relief under a lease was dismissed. The court found no anticipatory breach and held final interdicts were incompetent.
Sideralloys International SA v Rahida Investment Proprietary Limited (2797/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 227 (18 July 2019)
The court dismissed Sideralloys’ business rescue application, holding that it failed to prove a tacit term, breach, or repudiation by Rahida.
Van Niekerk v W en A Le Roux Slaghuis (Pty) Ltd and Another (73622/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1015 (7 November 2016)
The court found that the agreement between the applicant and respondents was susceptible to repudiation, as the applicant had already performed by paying the deposit, commission, and VAT. The respondents' conduct in selling and removing the cold rooms, freezer rooms, and fixed rails and hooks, which were integral to the property as described in the auction, constituted a deliberate and unequivocal intention not to deliver the property as sold. This amounted to repudiation. The applicant's immediate communication of his perception of repudiation and withdrawal from the agreement was reasonable…
Source excerpt
26492.2013 Sasol Pension Fund and Another v Love Bitez CC T/A Love Bites and Another (20 April 2016) (26492/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 530 (20 April 2016)
High Court case on lease negotiations, fraudulent non-disclosure, and election of remedies after the closure of an anchor tenant was revealed.
SPF and Another v LBCCT/A LB and Another (26492/13) [2016] ZAGPPHC 378 (20 April 2016)
High Court case on a lease dispute involving fraudulent misrepresentation, non-disclosure of an ice rink closure, and the doctrine of election of remedies.
Lab-Cor Trading (Pty) Ltd v Blignaut (A643/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 374 (8 May 2015)
The respondent's cancellation of the sale agreement, both by SMS and email, constituted a clear intention not to be bound by the contract, amounting to repudiation and anticipatory breach. The seller accepted the repudiation, and the appellant, as the estate agent and beneficiary under clause 3.4 (stipulatio alteri), was entitled to claim commission. The Consumer Protection Act did not apply, so the respondent could not rely on a cooling-off period. The court distinguished Jacobs v Tenner, finding that the appellant was a third-party beneficiary and that the respondent's conduct amounted to d…
Source excerpt
Superstrike Investments 53 (Pty) Ltd v Siyakha Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (2006/2035) [2015] ZAGPJHC 78 (29 April 2015)
The court held that the defendants fraudulently misrepresented their authority to open a Fruit & Veg City store, inducing the lease and its cancellation.
Braun Medical (Pty) Ltd v Ambasaam CC (757/2013) [2014] ZASCA 199; 2015 (3) SA 22 (SCA) (28 November 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by focusing on Braun Medical's subjective intention rather than the objective perception of a reasonable person in Ambasaam's position. The letters sent by Braun Medical were demands for performance and did not indicate an unwillingness to perform its own contractual obligations. Even if the demands were unjustified, they did not amount to a deliberate and unequivocal intention not to be bound by the agreement. The objective test for repudiation was not met, as a reasonable person would not have concluded that proper performance woul…
Source excerpt
AA v LA (10498/2013) [2013] ZAWCHC 168 (6 November 2013)
The applicant failed to establish the existence of any agreement for the children's return to the USA by a fixed date. The evidence demonstrated that the children were habitually resident in South Africa, having acclimatised and settled there with the respondent. The applicant actively participated in integrating the children into South African life and shared the mutual intention to fix their residence in South Africa until at least July 2013. There was no wrongful retention under the Hague Convention, and the application for summary return was not justified. The applicant's contradictory ve…
Source excerpt
Explore more
