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
Noormohamed v Wealthy JT Brothers (Pty) Ltd (049270/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 687 (27 June 2025)
Summary judgment was granted for payment of the purchase price under a deed of sale. The court rejected the defendant’s locus standi and Alienation of Land Act defences.
Ismail v Jantjies and Others (11318/23) [2025] ZAWCHC 128 (6 March 2025)
The court found that although the applicant and first respondent intended to enter into a sale agreement for the property in 2020, the agreement failed to comply with statutory requirements. Specifically, the agreement was not signed by all necessary parties, including the Master's representative for the late second respondent's estate and the current spouse of the first respondent, as required by the Matrimonial Property Act. The lack of written consent from the spouse and failure to comply with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act rendered the agreement void ab initio. The applicant d…
Source excerpt
CS Oosthuizen Boerdery CC v Radiant Hour Ministry International (NPC) (4261/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 464 (30 November 2023)
The respondent failed to honour the payment terms of the written sale agreement, which contained an entrenched formalities clause prohibiting improvements without prior written consent. The respondent's reliance on mediation under Uniform Rule 41A and the alternative dispute resolution clause was misplaced, as the applicant opposed mediation and the clause was inapplicable. The defence of a verbal amendment to the payment terms was unsupported and legally barred by established authority. The respondent's claim to an improvement/enrichment lien was rejected because the improvements were made w…
Source excerpt
Motwell Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd v Van Rensburg and Another (56155/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 930 (21 August 2023)
The court held that the suretyship clause, when read in the context of the entire agreement, sufficiently identified the company as the principal debtor. The reference to 'the hirer' in the suretyship clause was clarified by the 'Client Mandate' on page 1, which named the company and was initialled by the first respondent. The respondents' attempt to separate the 'Client Mandate' from the rest of the agreement was artificial and ignored the document's structure and context. Extrinsic evidence could be used to identify the principal debtor, but in this case, the written agreement itself was su…
Source excerpt
Van Basten v Odendaal (4648/2019) [2023] ZAFSHC 160; [2023] 3 All SA 289 (FB) (28 April 2023)
The High Court held that the plaintiff did not give a valid contractual demand before cancelling a farm lease, because the notice procedure in the lease was not strictly followed.
Numill Marketing (Proprietary) Limited v Courtney Roofing (Proprietary) Limited (37440/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 873 (28 April 2021)
The court dismissed exceptions to amended particulars of claim, holding that the annexed written agreement was binding and pleaded with sufficient particularity.
Makepeace v San Lameer Villa 3212 cc and Others (52533/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 23 (5 March 2021)
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish that a valid and binding agreement of sale was concluded between herself and the first respondent. The evidence showed that the agreement was concluded with Mr Makepeace, not the applicant, and no written authority or amendment substituting the applicant as purchaser was produced. The contractual terms required express written consent and a signed amendment for any substitution, which did not occur. The statutory requirements under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act were not met, as the applicant was not a party t…
Source excerpt
Booi and Another v Mabusela and Others (2219/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 149 (1 December 2020)
The court found that the applicants made an offer to purchase the property for R515,000.00, which the respondents accepted by signing the agreement on 22 August 2020. The respondents' argument that the applicants failed to initial the amended purchase price was rejected, as the applicants had already signed and offered the price, and the respondents' signature constituted acceptance. The agreement thus complied with the statutory formalities of section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act, 1981. The respondents' subsequent repudiation and attempt to sell to a third party amounted to breach of c…
Source excerpt
Airports Company SA Ltd v Masiphuze Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (1120/2018) [2019] ZASCA 150 (22 November 2019)
The court held that the suretyship complied with statutory formalities and rejected iustus error. The appeal was upheld and the matter remitted on quantum.
Airports Company South Africa Limited v Masiphuze Trading (Pty) Limited and Others (9676/2014) [2018] ZAKZDHC 22 (15 June 2018)
The court held that the third defendant was not bound by the alleged suretyship because the document was blank when signed and no authority to insert his name was proved.
Explore more
