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
Patel NO v Deedat and Another (2024/16548) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1292 (18 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application for an interim interdict over a co-owner’s fractional share, finding no prima facie right or proven harm.
C.K.N and Another v Villa Siesta Pet Retreat CC and Another (059704/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1230 (28 November 2024)
The court found that the applicants are co-owners of the property, based on their financial contributions, participation in management, and the terms of the settlement agreement, which confirmed their respective shares but did not resolve the termination of co-ownership. The respondents' res judicata argument failed because the parties and subject matter differed from the divorce proceedings, and the actio communi dividundo was not previously adjudicated. The affidavit was accepted as valid due to substantial compliance with the regulations, given the practical impossibility of conventional c…
Source excerpt
Nkomo and Others v Chaka and Others (010996/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 309 (27 March 2024)
The court found that the property was a family home registered to the parties' late father, who died intestate. In terms of the Intestate Succession Act, the surviving children are entitled to inherit the property in equal shares. The first respondent had registered the property solely in her name, excluding the other siblings and their descendants. The court held that the second applicant, as a spouse and not a sibling, was not entitled to be included in the title deed. Similarly, the second respondent, being the child of the first respondent, could not be included while his mother is alive.…
Source excerpt
Wessels v Roux (2022-044118) [2024] ZAGPJHC 8 (5 January 2024)
The High Court held that a co-owner was entitled to reasonable, limited access to the property, but not unfettered access or a separate accounting order.
Kingston v Msimang and Others (13623/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1948 (27 November 2023)
The court found that the applicant, as co-owner, has the necessary locus standi to seek eviction of the first respondent and other occupiers. The first respondent, as executor, does not acquire ownership rights and is not entitled to occupy the property. The JVA governs the sale of the property after the death of one party, requiring sale by public auction since no agreement was reached for a private sale within the stipulated period. The enforcement of the JVA does not offend public policy or constitutional rights, as the family may retain the home by purchasing the applicant's share. No rea…
Source excerpt
B.K v K.M and Another (6027/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 306 (24 November 2023)
The court held that the co-ownership of the property between the applicant and first respondent is bound by the terms of their divorce agreement, which was entered into post-divorce and endorsed by the Family Advocate. The agreement's manifest purpose is to provide stable accommodation for the children, with both parties contributing to the property's expenses and co-owning the property until the children no longer require such accommodation. The extrinsic relationship created by the divorce agreement persists, and thus the co-ownership remains bound. The actio communi dividundo is not availa…
Source excerpt
Campbell v Venter and Others (AR 306/2022) [2023] ZAKZPHC 83 (18 August 2023)
The court found that the appellant, through her email correspondence dated 16 February 2021, had expressly agreed to the leasing of the property for at least six months and to the signing of a new lease agreement. The subsequent conduct of the appellant, including her attorney's acceptance of half the rental payments and request for a copy of the lease, demonstrated acquiescence and reconciliation with the existence and implementation of the lease agreement. The appellant's objections were not supported by the agreed facts, and her arguments regarding lack of consent were disregarded. The cou…
Source excerpt
Smith v Smolak and Another (2021/7136) [2022] ZAGPJHC 825 (21 October 2022)
The High Court dismissed an interdict application over co-ownership and contact arrangements for a dog, finding no irreparable harm and an adequate alternative remedy.
Maluleka N.O v Mbatha and Another (2019/63169) [2022] ZAGPPHC 419 (15 June 2022)
The High Court dismissed an executor’s bid to compel a co-owner to sign an offer to purchase jointly owned property, pointing to co-ownership remedies instead.
Phillips and Others v Gunn (A62/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 31 (18 January 2021)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a spoliation order, holding that locking and cordoning off parts of the shared property amounted to partial dispossession.
Explore more
