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
I.L.L v L.V.H and Others (2807/2022) [2023] ZAECQBHC 54 (26 September 2023)
The High Court dismissed exceptions to particulars of claim, finding the pleading sufficiently alleged a cause of action against all defendants.
Izicash (Pty) Ltd v Kamoza Technology Solutions CC and Others (47216/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 762 (30 August 2023)
The High Court granted default judgment against the first and second defendants for a mistaken payment into the company’s account, while the action against the third defendant remained pending.
Matlala v Mmela Investment Holdings (PTY) Ltd and Others (25524/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 635 (11 July 2022)
The High Court dismissed an exception to a declaration in a contract dispute, holding the pleaded facts could support liability and costs should lie where they fall.
Baba and Others v Clicks Group Limited and Another (EC 12/2020) [2022] ZAWCHC 32; 2022 (4) SA 141 (WCC) (28 February 2022)
The Equality Court dismissed a challenge to the TRESemmé advert, finding no unfair racial discrimination in context and holding the wrong company was cited.
Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd v Mirchandani; Mirchandani v Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd (3494/2014, 85824/2014, 51538/2014) [2020] ZAGPPHC 115 (3 March 2020)
The court found that the lease agreements between Mr Mirchandani and Unica were valid and binding, as evidenced by the signatures of all directors and the subsequent renewal of the agreement. Mr Mirchandani was entitled to reimbursement for utilities and rental as stipulated in the agreements. The agreement reached on 15 April 2010 regarding directors' salaries and wastage was binding, corroborated by Mr Cassim, and not vitiated by subsequent disputes. Regarding the NEMA action, the court held that Mr Mirchandani, as technical director and key role player, had knowledge and experience of the…
Source excerpt
Essop v S (AR 931/2004) [2014] ZAKZPHC 30; [2014] 3 All SA 337 (KZP); 2014 (2) SACR 495 (KZP) (23 May 2014)
The court held that while the charge sheet did not contain an express averment of prejudice, the facts alleged therein implied prejudice with reasonable certainty. The misrepresentations made by the appellant, resulting in the payment of company funds to a non-existent entity controlled by him, necessarily prejudiced Non-Ferrous Metal Works SA (Pty) Ltd. The appellant's defence that he acted on instructions from directors was rejected, as a company cannot lawfully authorise payments without a legitimate basis, and any such instruction would be void. The appellant's evidence was found to be in…
Source excerpt
Jukuda v African Pioneer Investment Holdings Ltd and Another (1770/2008) [2008] ZAECHC 191 (7 November 2008)
The court dismissed an application for summary judgment, finding non-compliance with rule 32 and that the respondents had raised bona fide defences.
Brandenburg Horse (Pty) Ltd t/a Brandenburg Stud v Meyer (54941/2007) [2008] ZAGPHC 368 (18 July 2008)
The High Court granted summary judgment for fees and disbursements under an oral horse-stabling agreement, rejecting the defendant’s counterclaim and liquidated-claim objections.
Explore more
