Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Land And Property [2020] ZALCC 22

Emantanjeni Community v Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Others (LCC17/2018)

Emantanjeni Community v Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Others (LCC17/2018) [2020] ZALCC 22 (17 August 2020)

The Land Claims Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success on the consent-order interpretation, costs, or fees issues.

  • Consent Order Interpretation
  • Parol Evidence Rule
  • Equitable Redress
  • Costs Award
  • Leave To Appeal
  • Leave-to-appeal
Read case analysis
Land And Property [2019] ZALCC 31

Emantanjeni Community v Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Others (LCC 17/2018)

Emantanjeni Community v Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Others (LCC 17/2018) [2019] ZALCC 31 (8 November 2019)

The Court held that the consent order of 12 June 2017 does not entitle the Applicant to immediate payment of R502,017,807. The order records the Applicant's abandonment of its claim for physical restoration and the release of certain landowners, while reserving the right to pursue equitable redress in future proceedings. There is no textual basis in the order for the relief sought, nor any reference to the quantum claimed. The Applicant's reliance on extrinsic evidence, including negotiations and correspondence, is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. The application to enforce payment…

  • Restitution Of Land Rights Act
  • Consent Order Interpretation
  • Parol Evidence Rule
  • Equitable Redress
  • Striking Out Irrelevant Evidence
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2016] ZALMPTHC 9

Nelwamondo and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another (768/2015)

Nelwamondo and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another (768/2015) [2016] ZALMPTHC 9 (15 March 2016)

The court found that paragraph 4 of the final consent order of 25 February 2013 contained a patent error, incorrectly referring to the 'first respondent' instead of the 'second respondent', and that this error was common to both parties. The true intention, as reflected in the interim order and surrounding circumstances, was not to interdict the first applicant from operating the second applicant's bank account. The application was not a variation but a clarification and correction of the order to give effect to the parties' original intention. The court exercised its powers under rule 42(1)…

  • Variation Of Court Order
  • Joint Signatory Rights
  • Rule 42 Uniform Rules
  • Bank Account Access
  • Consent Order Interpretation
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.