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
Lephoto v Frankle Motors CC t/a Swan Motors (NCT/257336/2023/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 53 (7 December 2023)
The Tribunal removed this consumer redress application from the roll after the parties settled outside the hearing. No merits finding or cost order was made.
V Z v V Z : In re: V Z v V Z (2020/31538) [2022] ZAGPJHC 694 (14 September 2022)
The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for entering into the consent judgment, as he was a businessperson familiar with contractual agreements and had previously been legally represented. The application lacked bona fides, as it was an attempt to renege on a commercial settlement agreement rather than a maintenance dispute. The applicant did not present a bona fide defence with prospects of success, as his arguments regarding affordability and the impact of Covid-19 did not affect the contractual nature of the agreement. The court found no grounds under common…
Source excerpt
John Wright Veneers (SA) (Pty) v Komatieland Forests SOC Limited (52088/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 107 (16 February 2021)
The High Court held that a settlement agreement did not include an obligation to deliver additional logs, and dismissed the plaintiff’s damages claim with costs.
Wimpey v HPS Africa Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd (5268/19) [2019] ZAGPJHC 266 (16 August 2019)
The court held that an unconditional tender accepted under rule 34 bound the defendant, who could not later add conditions or withdraw it. Judgment was granted for the plaintiff.
M-Quip Mining and Diesel CC and Another v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another (49176/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 936 (2 November 2017)
On summary judgment, the court dismissed the cost claim against Eskom and ordered the plaintiffs to pay Eskom’s costs after settlement with the municipality.
Zevoli 158 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cancom and Others v The Road Traffic Infringement Agency and Others (82085/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 837 (11 December 2015)
The applicants sought to interdict RTIA from issuing enforcement orders and blocks, but the court found they failed to prove a binding settlement on the wider terms alleged.
Umanzi Plant & Sales BK v Iceburg Trading 717 BK t/a Pride Rock Drilling and Blasting (4302/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 36 (28 January 2013)
The court found that a binding settlement agreement was reached between the parties on 3 October 2012, with the amount of R297 828,84 agreed upon after concessions by the applicant. The respondent's subsequent objections and recalculations were made after the agreement and lacked merit. The confirmation letter, written by the respondent's accountant who was present at the meeting, further corroborated the existence of the agreement. The respondent's claims regarding lack of authority and absence of a signature were dismissed as artificial and contradictory. The alleged disputes of fact were n…
Source excerpt
Pahtkki Boerdery (Edms) Bpk en Anders v PJ BOTH NO en Ander (A203/2008) [2010] ZAFSHC 38 (22 April 2010)
The Free State High Court dismissed a review of an expert’s settlement-based cost determination for maize planting, finding no manifest unfairness or reviewable error.
Yellow Star Properties 1087 (Edms) Bpk v Lurama 149 (Edms) Beperk (3105/2007) [2008] ZAFSHC 30 (16 May 2008)
High Court summary judgment was refused after the defendant showed bona fide defences, including a counterclaim over alleged defective building work.
De Wet v Senwes Bpk (858/2004) [2005] ZAFSHC 103 (8 September 2005)
The court found that the settlement agreement, made an order of court, extinguished all previous obligations between the parties and replaced them with the terms of the compromise. Clause 3 of the order confirmed the cession of the proceeds of policy number 10998671X1 to the defendant and required the plaintiff to maintain the policy. The ordinary meaning of the clause, in context, was that the defendant is entitled to the full proceeds of the policy. The plaintiff's claim for re-cession was therefore dismissed, and the defendant's counterclaim for cession of the policy proceeds was granted.…
Source excerpt
Explore more
