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
Reenen Ranch CC v Van den Heever and Others (6311/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 114 (11 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed an eviction application because the close corporation had not properly authorised the litigation before it was launched.
Standard Bank of South Africa v Infogold Investments CC and Others (25921/2017) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1202 (20 September 2023)
The court found that the loan agreement is valid and binds the close corporation, as three of four members, holding a majority interest, signed and subsequently acted on the agreement. The absence of the fourth defendant's signature does not invalidate the agreement, nor does the lack of a signatory in the corporation's name, as the conduct of the parties confirmed acceptance and performance. The suretyship agreement is valid and binds the second to fifth defendants as co-principal debtors, jointly and severally liable. The plaintiff proved compliance with section 129 of the National Credit A…
Source excerpt
Somasiphula General Trading CC and Another v Van's Afslaers Gauteng (Pty) Ltd and Others (88160/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 345 (16 May 2022)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their default, as Mr. Mahlangu, a member of the applicant, had knowledge of the proceedings and failed to act. Service was properly effected at the registered address and chosen domicilium citandi et executandi, with personal service on a family member. The lack of authority defence was rejected, as Mr. Mahlangu acted as the face of the applicant and was clothed with ostensible authority. The suretyship defence was dismissed based on established case law that a member of a close corporation is a co-manager and…
Source excerpt
Milkwood Construction (Pty) Ltd v ERF 1109 Marina Martinique CC and Others (849/2009) [2009] ZAECPEHC 25 (26 May 2009)
The court found that a binding joint venture agreement was concluded between the applicants and the first respondent, as evidenced by signed documents, board resolutions, and subsequent conduct. The respondents' denial of the agreement was rejected as untenable and not supported by the objective facts. The second respondent was authorised to sign on behalf of the close corporation, and there was no association agreement precluding such authority. The agreement did not constitute an alienation of land as envisaged by the Alienation of Land Act, and thus compliance with section 2(1) was not req…
Source excerpt
Explore more
