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
HWJ Coal (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ni-Da Transport (Pty) Ltd (A296/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 413 (29 April 2024)
The High Court held that the magistrates’ court lacked jurisdiction because written consent from both parties was not proved, so the appeal succeeded with costs.
Honey Silk Trading & Investment 1027 CC v 360 ABL (Pty) Ltd (2021/A3058) [2022] ZAGPJHC 131 (10 March 2022)
The court held that the consent to jurisdiction contained in the written loan agreement was valid under section 45(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act as it conferred forum jurisdiction on the Magistrates' Court for claims exceeding the monetary threshold, provided the court had area jurisdiction over the appellant, which was satisfied in this case. The appellant's argument that only a specific consent for imminent proceedings is valid was rejected as contrary to established authority and the wording of section 45(1). The court found that the consent clause covered all advances made under the f…
Source excerpt
Fairvest Property Holdings v Valdimax CC t/a Fish and Chips Co and Others (A3019/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 435; 2020 (3) SA 202 (GJ) (1 November 2019)
The court held that the magistrate's court lacked monetary jurisdiction over the appellant's claim, which exceeded R100,000, unless written consent was provided in terms of section 45 of the Magistrates' Court Act. The consent to jurisdiction clause in the lease and suretyship agreements could only be relied upon against the second respondent, who admitted the suretyship agreement; the first and third respondents disputed the agreements and did not provide written consent. The appellant's claim was a single globular amount, not supported by separate monthly causes of action within jurisdictio…
Source excerpt
Seaview Plant Hire and Civil Contractors CC and Another v Lukhanji Precast CC (4126/2015) [2017] ZAECGHC 105 (29 June 2017)
The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a magistrate’s transfer order, finding the removal to High Court was by consent and not a nullity.
Kuehne & Nagel Ltd v Moncada Energy Group SRL (40214/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 26 (19 February 2016)
The court held that the applicant's claims under the demand guarantees are 'maritime claims' as defined in the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, because they relate to the remuneration of a forwarding agent and are legally connected to the underlying forwarding services agreements. The statutory language is broad and purposive, intending to confer admiralty jurisdiction over all claims with a legally relevant connection to maritime matters. As the South Gauteng High Court's area of jurisdiction is not adjacent to the territorial waters of the Republic, it is statutorily excluded from exe…
Source excerpt
Durofin (Pty) Limited v Henque 4257 CC and Another (A676/2008) [2011] ZAGPPHC 93 (15 June 2011)
High Court appeal about magistrates' court jurisdiction was dismissed. The court held the appellant failed to prove jurisdiction, consent was not shown, and domicilium did not confer jurisdiction.
Mclaren v Badenhorst and Others (CA 10/2010) [2010] ZAECGHC 42; 2011 (1) SA 214 (ECG) (2 June 2010)
The court held that the magistrate's court lacked jurisdiction to hear the debt rearrangement application. The consumer was neither resident in the court's area nor did the cause of action arise there. Written consent to jurisdiction by the consumer did not satisfy the requirements of s 28(1)(f) or s 45(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, as consent must be specific to the proceedings and given by all parties, not just one. Furthermore, the failure to serve notice on all affected credit providers was fatal to the application. The magistrate was correct to raise the jurisdiction issue mero motu…
Source excerpt
Tsung and Another v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd. and Another (079/05) [2006] ZASCA 28; 2006 (4) SA 177 (SCA); [2013] 2 All SA 556 (SCA) (23 March 2006)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a peregrine defendant's late consent to jurisdiction, given after attachment of property to found or confirm jurisdiction, cannot undo the attachment. The attachment serves not only to establish jurisdiction but also to provide security for the plaintiff, ensuring the enforceability of any judgment obtained. Allowing late consent to invalidate the attachment would frustrate the incolae's ability to execute against the attached property and undermine the established objectives of the attachment procedure. The court found no policy or fairness reason to dep…
Source excerpt
Jamieson: In re Jamieson v Sabingo (99/17038, 99/17459), Ex parte [2000] ZAGPHC 9; 2001 (2) SA 775 (W) (13 April 2000)
The court found that the defendant, a foreign resident, had consented to the jurisdiction of the South African court after the ex parte application for attachment but before the attachment was effected. Relying on the binding authority of American Flag plc v Great African T-Shirt Corporation CC, the court held that such consent is sufficient to confer jurisdiction and that attachment should not be permitted in these circumstances. The court acknowledged reservations about the correctness of the American Flag decision and its interpretation of Veneta Wineraria Spa v Carolina Collieries (Pty) L…
Source excerpt
Explore more
