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
Tusk Construction Support Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mayibongwe N.O and Others (27188/2012) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1893 (6 October 2023)
The court dismissed claims by lenders seeking school contract payments from the IDT, holding that the JBCC contracts barred cession without consent.
Mphigalale v Body Corporate of Protea Estate and Another (16763/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 298 (17 October 2013)
The court found that the applicant, by purchasing a sectional title unit, contractually agreed to be bound by the management rules, including the arbitration process set out in Rule 71. The argument that the applicant did not consent to arbitration was rejected, as the rules are deemed consensual and binding on all owners. The issue of improper notice was not pleaded and was raised for the first time in oral argument; therefore, no finding could be made in the applicant's favour on that point. The applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would result from the arbitration proceeding.…
Source excerpt
Kgatla-Kgaphola v Davel, De Klerk, Kgatla Inc (10636/10) [2012] ZAGPPHC 172 (16 August 2012)
The court held that the applicant, a practising attorney, voluntarily consented in writing to the use of her name in the respondent's registered name when she became a shareholder and director. The shareholders' agreement contains no provision requiring the removal of her name upon termination of her shareholding or directorship, and its non-variation clause excludes reliance on any extraneous or implied terms. The respondent, as a separate legal entity, is entitled to retain its registered name. The applicant failed to establish any infringement of her rights to privacy, personality, or iden…
Source excerpt
Micro Finance Regulatory Council v AAA Investment (Pty) Ltd and Another (346/2004) [2005] ZASCA 82; [2006] 3 All SA 256 (SCA); 2006 (1) SA 27 (SCA) (21 September 2005)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Micro Finance Regulatory Council was not exercising public or legislative powers when making rules for micro-lenders. Its authority to regulate derived from the voluntary consent of lenders who registered with it and agreed to abide by its rules, as empowered by its memorandum of association. The regulatory regime was contractual in nature, not imposed unilaterally by public law. The attack on the validity of the rules on the basis of lack of legislative authority was misconceived. The privacy challenge was not addressed, as it was premised on the rul…
Source excerpt
Explore more
