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
Marais and Another v Nortiger Logistics-SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (14866/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 498 (21 May 2025)
The court set aside the sale of a crane after finding a prior cession invalid and ineffective to transfer ownership, making the disposition voidable in liquidation.
Yandisa Corporate Holdings (Pty) Ltd v OAK Cap Closed Corporation and Another (2024-098631) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1226 (25 November 2024)
The High Court suspended an order perfecting a cession and pledge and altering share control, pending rescission proceedings, and referred conduct concerns to the Legal Practice Council.
Just Agronomics Group (Pty) Limited v Afropulse 466 (Pty) Limited and Others (24535/2020) (24535/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 16 (8 January 2021)
The applicant established a prima facie right to the proceeds of the sale of 900 tonnes of yellow maize, which were unlawfully appropriated by the respondents. The respondents failed to cast serious doubt on the applicant's case, and their contradictory explanations were unconvincing. The alleged cession and pledge in the lease agreement do not override the applicant's ownership rights, and the lease's validity and enforceability are doubtful. The harm to the applicant if interim relief is refused outweighs any prejudice to the respondents, especially as Servigraph is in business rescue and H…
Source excerpt
Arctocel (Pty) Limited v Firstrand Bank Limited (32633/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 244 (21 October 2015)
The court found that the respondent was entitled to freeze the applicant's bank accounts pursuant to the unlimited cession and pledge agreements executed by the applicant. The respondent's actions did not constitute unlawful self-help, as the security was already in its possession by virtue of the cession, distinguishing the present case from Lesapo. The applicant's challenge to the validity of the agreements was unpersuasive, and the respondent's claim was sufficiently liquidated for the purposes of set-off. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, which would suffer irreparable h…
Source excerpt
Explore more
