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
Stephen v Asnath and Others (LCC 119/2024) [2025] ZALCC 17 (10 April 2025)
The court granted an eviction under ESTA, dismissing points in limine and finding the occupier fell outside ESTA protection due to income.
Passano v Erasmus (82775/2015) [2023] ZAGPPHC 583 (16 January 2023)
The High Court held that the defendant’s occupation was lawful because she had a retention lien for improvements, and dismissed both claims with no costs order.
Delta 200 Properties (Pty) Ltd v D and Others (LCC31/2019) [2020] ZALCC 24 (12 August 2020)
The court found that Mr and Mrs D are ESTA occupiers entitled to protection, but neither was an occupier on 4 February 1997, making section 11 of ESTA applicable. The applicant lawfully terminated their rights of residence through a procedurally fair process, affording them an opportunity to make representations. The substantive grounds for termination were just and equitable, given the breakdown of the relationship, lack of rental payments, and the applicant's commercial interests. The respondents' financial hardship and disruption to their children's education were considered, but the court…
Source excerpt
Du Plessis and Another v Ross and Others (LCC257/2017) [2020] ZALCC 30 (26 May 2020)
The court granted an ESTA eviction, found Mrs Ross was an occupier in her own right, and ordered compensation for improvements made to the dwelling.
Gower and Another v Tol and Others (4236/2014) [2017] ZAECGHC 10 (1 February 2017)
The court held that costs should follow the result for each distinct claim rather than awarding an arbitrary percentage of total costs. The approach adopted in Golding was preferred, as it allows the taxing master to accurately calculate costs attributable to each claim. The plaintiffs must pay the defendants' costs for the withdrawn Will claim, and the defendants must pay the plaintiffs' costs for the successful improvements claim. The amended settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the first and seventh defendants was made an order of court.
Source excerpt
Daniels v Scribante and Another (LCC164/2015) [2015] ZALCC 12 (11 November 2015)
The Land Claims Court held that an occupier under ESTA may not make dwelling improvements without the owner’s consent. The appeal was dismissed.
Screen v Havemann (A719/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 949 (14 November 2014)
Appeal over repayment, compensation for improvements, and occupation costs under a void land-sale agreement was dismissed.
Cumberland Hotel (Pty) Limited v MAA Enterprises (Pty) Ltd (MAHLB-000437-10) [2010] ZAGPPHC 302 (6 December 2010)
The court held that a fixed-term sublease expired by effluxion of time, rejected an implied right to renew, and granted eviction and costs.
Mills v Mills (13128/2006) [2008] ZAWCHC 121 (11 December 2008)
A divorce-related partition dispute over jointly owned property. The court rejected the defendant’s alleged contribution agreement and ordered transfer of the plaintiff’s share for adjusted compensation.
Explore more
