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
Lateovista (Pty) Limited v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (2025/038460) [2025] ZAGPJHC 379 (8 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to restore electricity to a leased property, holding that spoliation, contempt, and an interdict were not established.
Mabatha v Renault Bryanston Motors (NCT/316768/2024/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 29 (23 August 2024)
Consumer application dismissed after the Tribunal found no prohibited conduct, no proven misrepresentation, and no basis to cancel the vehicle credit agreement.
Firstrand Bank Ltd v Smartpurse Solutions (Pty) Ltd (35882/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 413 (24 April 2024)
The applicant established that the respondent failed to comply with a statutory demand served at its registered office, satisfying the requirements of section 345(1)(a)(i) of the Companies Act, 1973. Alternatively, the respondent is unable to pay its debts as contemplated by section 345(1)(c). The respondent's defences lack merit: the contractual domicilium provision is permissive, not peremptory, and does not override the statutory requirement for service at the registered office. The existence of contractual remedies does not preclude winding-up proceedings, and the applicant did not abuse…
Source excerpt
Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others v Ngoye and Others (JA78/21) [2024] ZALAC 18; (2024) 45 ILJ 1228 (LAC); [2024] 7 BLLR 706 (LAC); 2025 (2) SA 556 (LAC) (26 March 2024)
The Labour Appeal Court held that contractual claims for unlawful termination can be heard, but specific performance is discretionary and was wrongly granted here.
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Mathabeng Local Municipality and Others - Application for Leave to Appeal (3367/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 445 (10 November 2023)
The High Court dismissed Eskom’s application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of its contempt application, finding no reasonable prospects of success.
Raudev (Pty) v Emerging Markets Home Loans Two (Pty) Ltd and Others (A141/20; 75566/17) [2021] ZAGPPHC 680 (7 October 2021)
High Court appeal over latent defects in sectional-title units. The court upheld specific performance, struck out a damages paragraph, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
N.F.M v John Wesley School and Another (4594/2016) [2018] ZAKZDHC 64; 2019 (2) SA 557 (KZD) (19 December 2018)
The court found that the exclusion policy as practiced by the first respondent was inconsistent with the Constitution, specifically sections 28(2) and 29(3)(c), as it victimized and humiliated the learner for his parents' failure to pay school fees. The contract applicable to the 2016 school year did not provide for exclusion of learners for non-payment, and the school’s conduct breached its own contractual terms. The court held that independent schools must act in a manner that minimizes harm to the learner’s right to education and must follow fair procedures that consider the best interests…
Source excerpt
Mmusi v Scheepers Boorwerke (Pty) Ltd t/a Eunever Trading 405 (NW08/2017) [2018] ZACONAF 12 (2 October 2018)
Consumer affairs tribunal found the supplier committed unfair business practice by taking payment without fully rendering borehole drilling services.
Bothma-Batho Transport (Pty) Limited and Another v Nedbank Limited (223/2014) [2015] ZASCA 31 (25 March 2015)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the bank could not compel a replacement life policy by importing a tacit term where the contract already dealt with premiums and remedies.
Transnet Ltd v Tebeka and Others (616/2010) [2011] ZAECPEHC 26 (14 June 2011)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the respondents were unlawful occupiers, as the respondents provided a plausible account that the debt had been settled, and the applicant did not adequately refute this. Even if the respondents were unlawful occupiers, the court held that eviction would not be just and equitable under section 26 of the Constitution and the PIE Act, given the respondents' age, lack of alternative accommodation, and long-term residence. The applicant's founding affidavit was deficient in establishing locus standi and failed to comply with procedural r…
Source excerpt
Explore more
