Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2019] ZANCT 106

Norris v Velox Auctioneers (Pty) Ltd (NCT/127046/2019/75(1)(b))

Norris v Velox Auctioneers (Pty) Ltd (NCT/127046/2019/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 106 (14 July 2019)

Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Case number
NCT/127046/2019/75(1)(b)
Judge
B Dumisa

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as the transaction was business-to-business and not aimed at protecting end-users. The auction agreement did not meet the requirements of Regulation 22, lacking clear rules of auction, fee descriptions, and provisions for reserve price outcomes. The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under the CPA for the applicant's claim, as the legislation does not cover the applicant's circumstances.

Source excerpt

  • Auction Regulation
  • Definition Of Consumer
  • Application Of Consumer Protection Act
  • Business To Business Transactions
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2016] ZAWCHC 93

Sheriff of the High Court Piketberg and Another v Lourens; In re: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Trustees for the Time Being of the Eila Trust and Others (3467/2014)

Sheriff of the High Court Piketberg and Another v Lourens; In re: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Trustees for the Time Being of the Eila Trust and Others (3467/2014) [2016] ZAWCHC 93; 2016 (6) SA 110 (WCC); [2016] 4 All SA 239 (WCC) (1 August 2016)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
3467/2014
Judge
Mahomed AJ

The court found that the applicants were not legally obliged to establish or disclose the VAT status of the property to the respondent. The obligation to pay VAT was clearly stipulated in the conditions of sale, which the respondent had inspected and which were read out prior to the auction. The respondent failed to make enquiries regarding VAT and refused to pay the amount due, thereby breaching the conditions of sale. The court held that Regulation 22(2) of the Consumer Protection Act applies to sales in execution, and the Sheriff, acting as the rightful holder authorized by the court, was…

Source excerpt

  • Sale In Execution
  • Consumer Protection Act
  • Auction Regulation
  • Vat On Property Sales
  • Uniform Rules Of Court
  • Contractual Obligations
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.