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
Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v Africhick Trading (Pty) Ltd t/a Africaz and Others (D946/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 12 (18 April 2024)
Summary judgment was refused because the supporting affidavit was contradictory and did not show that the deponent could swear positively to the facts.
Inyanda Capital (Pty) Limited v M Sohag Trading (Pty) Limited (2023/081996) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1179 (18 October 2023)
The court found that the respondent failed to establish the existence of a bona fide oral five-year lease agreement. The evidence showed that the respondent applied for a lease and underwent a vetting process, but no written agreement was concluded. The respondent's version was improbable and unsupported by contemporaneous documentation or payment records. The respondent failed to respond to specific requests for details of the alleged oral lease and did not pay the full rental and charges as claimed. The court held that the applicant, as owner, was entitled to eject the respondent by way of…
Source excerpt
Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Nefdt and Others (A156/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 71 (30 March 2021)
The court held that PIE applies only to residential occupation, not commercial use. Therefore, the trial court erred in refusing relief against the fifth respondent except for those who claim to reside on the premises. The appropriate order is to evict commercial occupants, with PIE procedures required only for those asserting residential use. The first and third respondents opposed the application without substantive defence and should bear costs for the initial proceedings. The fifth respondent's members were not genuinely opposing but were caught between the appellant and first respondent;…
Source excerpt
Atlantis Property Holdings CC v Atlantis Excel Service Station CC (40742/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 120 (4 May 2018)
The court found that clause 22 of the lease agreement does not permit termination by either party on 30 days' notice during the initial or renewal periods. The proper interpretation, considering the context and commercial purpose of the lease, is that the clause applies only after the initial and renewal periods have expired and an option to renew has been exercised and accepted. Allowing termination at any time would render the detailed commercial terms meaningless and create uncertainty, which is contrary to public policy and commercial reasonableness. The applicant's purported cancellation…
Source excerpt
Soteriou v Retco Poyntons (Pty) Ltd. (1) (381/83) [1985] ZASCA 15; [1985] 2 All SA 208 (A) (29 March 1985)
The court held that a lease clause gave the tenant a valid right of first refusal for a new lease, and the landlord’s refusal to offer one justified setting aside ejectment.
Explore more
