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
Justice Benjamin Segomotso Moloabi v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited (6116/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 194 (25 June 2025)
The High Court confirmed a rule nisi restoring electricity to a business premises, holding that Eskom’s disconnection was an unlawful spoliation of quasi-possession.
Smith v Mouille Grange Body Corporate and Others (C606/2022) [2024] ZALCCT 55 (18 November 2024)
Labour Court held that the applicant was an independent contractor, not an employee, so the CCMA lacked jurisdiction and the review was dismissed.
Body Corporate of Willow and Aloe Grove v City of Johannesburg and Another (41604/2020 ; 13541/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1451 (11 December 2023)
The court held that the legislative scheme governing municipal credit control and dispute resolution creates binding obligations on both customers and municipalities. Customers must frame disputes clearly and engage in good faith, while municipalities must investigate and provide cogent written determinations. The court cannot interfere with the municipality's determination of account disputes or compel specific recalculations, as this would constitute an impermissible incursion into the contractual and administrative relationship. Judicial review is only available after exhaustion of interna…
Source excerpt
Compensation Commissioner and Others v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd (30147/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 434 (30 June 2021)
The court found that the settlement agreement, as made an order of court, was intended to regulate both the backlog of claims and future claims submitted by the respondent. The applicants' interpretation, limiting the agreement to only the backlog, was inconsistent with the clear and unambiguous terms of the agreement. The court rejected the argument that the respondent's entitlement to interest and reliance on the agreement was limited to claims existing at the time of the order. The principle of res judicata does not apply to claims arising after the 2009 order, as the order regulates futur…
Source excerpt
Pather v Wakefields Real Estate (Pty) Limited (AR82/2016) [2020] ZAKZPHC 16 (29 May 2020)
Appeal over commission for the sale of a house. The court found an oral mandate to the estate agent, held the agent was the effective cause, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Twende Africa Group (Pty) Ltd t/a TAG Marine v MFV Qavak (476/2018) [2019] ZASCA 9 (12 March 2019)
The court found that TAG did not establish a prima facie case for entitlement to commission from Fisherman Fresh. The evidence showed TAG acted as broker for the seller, Donohue Fishing, and not for Fisherman Fresh. There was no express or implied contract between TAG and Fisherman Fresh for the payment of commission, nor was there a limited exclusivity agreement. TAG's listing of the vessel was without authority from the owner, and its communications did not create a contractual relationship. The claim for damages based on breach of exclusivity or unlawful interference failed due to lack of…
Source excerpt
Nyume and Another v Walter Sisulu University and Others (580/19) [2019] ZAECMHC 12 (20 February 2019)
The court held that it was precluded from considering the merits of the application for an interlocutory interdict due to the non-joinder of other students registered for the degree in question. These students have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome, and any order granted would materially affect their rights. The application was not brought as a class action nor founded on constitutional provisions, but rather on contract. Until the necessary parties are joined, the court cannot proceed to determine the substantive issues. Costs were awarded against the applicants for the oppose…
Source excerpt
Van Loggerensberg v Manny's Timber & Hardware (Pty) Ltd and Others (56164/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 823 (23 June 2017)
High Court claim for repayment based on unjust enrichment failed because the defendants were not shown to have been enriched at the plaintiff’s expense.
Margro v Amalgamated Beverages Industries (2005/2986) [2014] ZAGPJHC 358 (3 December 2014)
The High Court granted leave to amend particulars of claim, finding the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action and caused no shown prejudice.
CG Casket & Coffin Manufacturers CC v JNJ Coffins CC and Others (3807/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 197 (16 October 2014)
The court found that the applicant had sufficiently explained the absence of the 2008 contract and had attached the 2011 agreement, which contained the same terms and conditions. The objection by the respondents was deemed misplaced, as the amended particulars of claim would not prevent the respondents from presenting their version or raising any legal defence. The court held that the rules of court do not require the production of a lost or destroyed contract for enforcement, and that the substantive law does not bar a claim in such circumstances. The application for amendment was allowed, a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
