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
Makhabane and Others v Rapelang Orabeleng (Pty) Ltd and Others (7132/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 92 (7 March 2025)
The High Court discharged a spoliation rule nisi over cattle, holding that the First Respondent was a bona fide third-party possessor and spoliation was not competent.
Remhoogte CC and Others v The Jacob Durr Trust and Others (A23/2020) [2021] ZAMPMHC 14 (8 April 2021)
The court held that the oral agreement for the sale of the farm was void for non-compliance with the Alienation of Land Act, and thus the cattle delivered as deposit must be returned. The principle of accession dictates that the owner of the mother is entitled to the offspring born after delivery. The rigid application of the litis contestatio principle, limiting Remhoogte's claim to offspring born only after the institution of proceedings, results in arbitrary deprivation of property and unjust enrichment of the respondents, contrary to section 25 and the interests of justice under section 1…
Source excerpt
Wesbank, A division of First Rand Bank Limited v Musisi and Others; Wesbank, First Rand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank t/a Bikefin and another v Musisi and Another (A335/18; 40193/2017; 58350/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 749 (10 December 2020)
The High Court upheld Wesbank’s appeal, dismissed the spoliation claim, granted cancellation of the instalment sale agreements, and refused further evidence.
Amore Rhyn Investments (Pty) Ltd v Stoffberg N.O. and Another (M166/2016) [2017] ZANWHC 60 (11 August 2017)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, holding that the ownership and possession issues were not properly canvassed at trial and raised too late.
Pretorius v Zwane NO (60438/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 66 (2 March 2017)
High Court held that the plaintiff owned 692 bales of Eragrostis grass and ordered delivery of the bales; the alternative claim was separated.
Builder's Depot CC v Damian (2011 (4) SA 486 (GSJ)) [2011] ZAGPJHC 37; A3008/11 (13 May 2011)
The court held that the appellant lost possession of the property on 28 October 2010 when the Sheriff sold the property in execution, accepted payment from the respondent, and authorised the respondent to take possession by changing the locks. The Sheriff acted bona fide and in accordance with the conditions of sale, and the respondent became a bona fide possessor. The operative law in this jurisdiction is that a spoliation order cannot be granted against a party who has acquired possession bona fide from a spoliator. The appellant misconstrued its remedy, as the dispute had moved from posses…
Source excerpt
Kahn v Volschenk (189/84) [1986] ZASCA 34; [1986] 2 All SA 300 (A) (26 March 1986)
The court held that bearer defence bonus bonds could not be vindicated from a bona fide purchaser for value, and upheld the appellant’s claim.
Standard Kredietkorporasie Bpk. v Jot Motors (Edms) Bpk. (118/84) [1985] ZASCA 96; [1986] 1 All SA 329 (A) (25 September 1985)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent, who repaired the vehicle at the request of Marogane, was in lawful possession and entitled to a right of retention until compensated for the repair costs. The respondent's knowledge of the appellant's ownership and the terms of the hire purchase agreement did not amount to mala fides, nor did it constitute acting against express instructions. Clause 3(a) of the agreement required the buyer to keep the vehicle free from liens, but did not prohibit necessary repairs or the possibility of a lien arising from unpaid repair costs. The indemnity…
Source excerpt
Explore more
