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
Cooper N O and Another v Curro Heights Properties (Pty) Ltd (1300/2021) [2023] ZASCA 66; 2023 (5) SA 402 (SCA) (16 May 2023)
The SCA held that a land sale agreement was void ab initio for non-compliance with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act and lack of consensus on the merx.
Dyobiso v Dyobiso and Others (EL1848/2022) [2023] ZAECELLC 3 (14 February 2023)
The applicant failed to produce the original deed of sale, and the copies presented did not meet the requirements for admissibility as secondary evidence. The alteration of the date in the suspensive condition was not properly initialled or signed by all parties, resulting in uncertainty regarding a material term of the contract. Statutory formalities under the Alienation of Land Act require all material terms to be in writing and signed by all parties; failure to comply renders the contract void ab initio. The suspensive condition was not fulfilled within the agreed timeframe, and the applic…
Source excerpt
Nedbank Limited v Dolbey and Another (D3809/2016) [2021] ZAKZDHC 22 (28 April 2021)
The court found that the second defendant was present at the plaintiff’s premises on 30 July 2014 and signed the deed of suretyship, binding herself for the company’s debt up to R2 million. The court held that the suretyship document, despite minor discrepancies in the company’s registration numbers and spelling errors, satisfied the formal requirements of section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956. The principal debtor was identifiable by reference to the loan agreement. The second defendant’s denial of signature was not supported by credible evidence, and her alternative plea was…
Source excerpt
Moosa v Albemarle Court Share Block (Pty) Ltd and Others (AR390/2019, 9987/2014) [2020] ZAKZPHC 15 (22 May 2020)
The court held that the appellant failed to establish a legal right to the inside garage, as the swop agreement between previous shareholders was not registered and did not comply with the formalities required by the Share Blocks Control Act. The appellant accepted and used the outside garage for a significant period, and the evidence did not clarify the physical location of garage 28 at the time of her purchase. The rights acquired by the appellant could not exceed those held by her predecessor, and the swop agreement, though approved by the company, did not alter the share register or the a…
Source excerpt
Van Den Berg and Others v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (A170/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 967 (25 November 2015)
High Court appeal on whether suretyship forms signed in blank complied with section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act.
VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Muncipality (70201/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 351 (20 May 2015)
The High Court dismissed an exception to a municipality’s declaration for professional fees, finding the MFMA point and vagueness complaint unsuitable and insufficient on exception.
VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (70201/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 774 (20 May 2015)
The High Court dismissed an exception to a declaration for municipal engineering fees, holding that alleged MFMA non-compliance and pleading defects could be raised in a plea.
VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (70201/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 412 (14 May 2015)
The court held that the respondent's declaration was sufficiently clear for the applicant to plead thereto. The alleged non-compliance with the MFMA and the nature of the services could be raised in the plea and addressed in further proceedings. The applicant failed to demonstrate that it would suffer serious prejudice if the declaration was not amended. The exception was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Source excerpt
Edge to Edge 1199 CC v Tha-Mhle Estates (Pty) Ltd (1291/13) [2015] ZAECMHC 48 (16 April 2015)
The plaintiff's claim is based on an alleged oral contract for the sale of immovable property. South African law, specifically section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981, requires such contracts to be in writing and signed by the parties. The same oral agreement was previously litigated between the parties in Case No. 961/2012, where the court held the agreement unenforceable due to non-compliance with statutory formalities. The present claim for damages relies on the same alleged contract and facts as the prior litigation. The elements required for a damages claim—existence of a v…
Source excerpt
Mazibuko and Another v Rampersadh and Others (11440/2013) [2014] ZAKZDHC 22 (3 June 2014)
The court referred a disputed property-sale matter to oral evidence, after conflicting versions emerged about completion, signatures, and later manuscript changes.
Explore more
