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
Nutrico SA (Pty) Ltd v Van Niekerk and Another (615/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 117 (22 April 2024)
The High Court dismissed an unopposed provisional sequestration application because the papers were confused, procedurally defective, and service was unreliable.
Nel and Another v Fensham t/a MV Finance (31739/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 117 (26 May 2016)
The court found that the applicants failed to prove the existence of an oral agreement binding the respondent to repay R1 050 000.00. There was insufficient evidence that Fensham had authority to represent the respondent or that she ratified his actions. The respondent's denial of any agreement and lack of documentary proof undermined the applicants' case. The court further held that the transactions did not constitute a credit agreement under the National Credit Act, and thus compliance with sections 129 and 130 was not required. The applicants' reliance on ostensible authority was misplaced…
Source excerpt
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Gordon and Others [2011] ZAGPJHC 114; 2011/6477 (21 September 2011)
The court dismissed an application to enforce a mortgage bond because the applicant failed to plead the loan agreement and supporting documents properly in the founding affidavit.
Minister of Trade and Industry and Another v E L Enterprises and Another (193/10) [2010] ZASCA 149; 2011 (1) SA 581 (SCA) (29 November 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 5(4)(a) of the Counterfeit Goods Act does not require notice of motion or service on the respondent within 10 court days.
Otto v Valtrac (Pty) Ltd and Others (539/2006) [2008] ZANWHC 24 (14 August 2008)
The court dismissed an application for joinder, holding that the applicant had not established a prima facie case against Noordwes Valtrac CC.
Regspersoon van die Kleinbosch Deeltitel Skema v Westraad N.O and Another (4580/2005) [2006] ZAFSHC 107 (2 February 2006)
The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement that the proposed special resolution be specifically mentioned in the written notice of the meeting. The agenda and attached documentation did not clearly indicate that a decision to institute legal proceedings against the developer would be considered. As a result, the resolution purportedly passed on 4 October 2005 was invalid and of no effect. The application was dismissed on this basis, with costs awarded to the respondents, including the costs of two counsel.
Source excerpt
Explore more
