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
Seboni N.O and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Others (Leave to Appeal) (18797/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 6 (17 January 2025)
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the seventh respondent failed to show reasonable prospects of success in a fraud-tainted property transfer dispute.
Mashazi v Mukuma and Others (17373/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 668 (22 July 2024)
The court dismissed an application to set aside a later transfer of property, finding no proof the later purchasers knew of the earlier sale.
Nkwashu v Master of High Court of South Africa and Others (2022/19768) [2024] ZAGPJHC 519 (24 May 2024)
The court found that the third respondent's appointment as executor was procured by fraud, which vitiates all subsequent transactions, including the sale and transfer of the property. The fraud rendered the executor's appointment null and void, and as a result, the third respondent lacked authority to represent the estate or form the necessary intention to transfer the property. Applying the abstract theory of transfer, the court held that both a real agreement and registration are required for ownership to pass, but where fraud is present, ownership does not pass despite registration. The fo…
Source excerpt
Menziwa v Ndokwana and Others - Leave to Appeal (20872/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 294 (22 November 2023)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. Her account was incomplete, unsupported by evidence, and did not cover the entire period of delay. The applicant and her attorneys were aware of the time limits but did not act with urgency. The court further held that the non-joinder of the Executor or Master of the High Court was fatal to the main application, as the second respondent was deceased when the application was instituted. The order sought by the applicant was legally incompetent. On…
Source excerpt
Marishane and Others v Marishane and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 284; 25793/2021 (8 May 2023)
The court dismissed an application to set aside property transfers, finding the applicants failed to prove heirship or fraud and that the third respondent was a bona fide purchaser.
Basson v Bowring (15893/22) [2023] ZAWCHC 79 (24 April 2023)
The court discharged a rule nisi and dismissed an owner’s rei vindicatio claim for a trailer sold through a dealership to a bona fide purchaser.
Agnes and Another v Tobeka and Others (42040/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 814 (19 October 2022)
The court found that the applicants were deprived of their residential property without judicial process, in violation of constitutional protections under Sections 25 and 26. The initial foreclosure and sale by BOE Bank in 2001 was conducted extra-judicially, without any evidence of court proceedings or oversight. As a result, all subsequent sales and transfers of the property were tainted with illegality and declared void ab initio. The court held that even bona fide purchasers cannot acquire valid title where the original sale was a nullity. The Registrar of Deeds was ordered to cancel all…
Source excerpt
Hadebe v Rambau and Others (2021/26962) [2022] ZAGPJHC 89 (21 February 2022)
High Court referral to oral evidence in a disputed property ownership and estate matter, with joinder ordered for additional interested parties and costs reserved.
Amedee v Fidele and Others (20/9529) [2021] ZAGPJHC 837 (20 December 2021)
The court dismissed an application for re-transfer of property, holding that the respondent was a bona fide purchaser and that irregular affidavits were impermissible.
Ledwaba N.O v Mthembu and Others (25312/2016) [2021] ZAGPJHC 641 (30 August 2021)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in launching the rescission application, with his reliance on lack of funds being vague and unsupported. The applicant did not adequately address the extent and cause of the delay, nor the prejudice to the first respondent and others. The principle of finality in litigation and the interests of justice weighed against granting condonation, especially given the protracted history of the dispute and the applicant's dilatory conduct. Furthermore, the applicant did not establish a jurisdictional fact und…
Source excerpt
Explore more
