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
Amiss and Another v F E Industrial Supplies CC (002313/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 730 (21 July 2025)
The High Court refused summary judgment, finding the defendant’s affidavit disclosed a bona fide defence based on an alleged breach and counterclaim under a subcontractor agreement.
Mathomomayo Investment Holding CC v Gainsford N.O and Others (Appeal) (HCAA18/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 127 (27 June 2025)
The Court found that the contract between the Appellant and the Fourth Respondent was divisible, with separate obligations arising for each batch of goods delivered and accepted. The Appellant made separate payments for delivered goods, demonstrating acceptance of the divisible nature of the contract. The Respondents only claimed payment for goods actually delivered and accepted, and there was no dispute regarding those deliveries. The defence of exceptio adimpleti non contractus was not applicable as the Respondents did not claim for goods not delivered. The Court further found that no mater…
Source excerpt
Unitrade 1047 (Pty) t/a Isidingo Security Services v Metsimaholo Local Municipality (245/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 190 (24 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an exception to a counterclaim, holding the issues had already been finally decided and were barred by res judicata.
Skynet Warehousing (Pty) Ltd v Umnothowethu (27703/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 631 (23 June 2025)
The plaintiff discharged its onus by providing credible and corroborated evidence that it performed its obligations under the agreement, delivered the required services, and provided proof of delivery. The defendant failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the plaintiff's version or support its counterclaim, despite indicating it would call witnesses. Documentary evidence from the Gauteng Department of Education confirmed that all invoices submitted by the defendant were paid in full, undermining the defendant's assertion that non-payment by the GDE justified its refusal to pay the plaintiff. T…
Source excerpt
Coyle and Another v Classic Comfort Construction and Others (Pty) Ltd (2022/029290) [2025] ZAGPJHC 587 (11 June 2025)
The High Court refused to stay arbitration over a construction payment dispute, finding no compelling reason to halt the arbitration pending related action proceedings.
Body Corporate of the Manhattan v Blake (52472/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 583 (3 June 2025)
The High Court upheld exceptions to a respondent’s plea and counterclaim in a sectional title dispute, holding levies cannot be withheld and the counterclaim was res judicata.
Seven and Twelve on Houghton (Pty) Ltd v Trustees for time being Ms Property Trust (2024/077412) [2025] ZAGPJHC 531 (28 May 2025)
The High Court held the respondent had no right to occupy the Houghton units, found the loan had been settled, and dismissed the conditional counterclaim.
BKB Limited v De Bod and Others (14384/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 195 (9 May 2025)
The defendants failed to establish a bona fide defence to the plaintiff’s claim for summary judgment. The principal debt and validity of the suretyship agreement are not disputed. The alleged unlawful interference and defamation by the plaintiff are not substantiated by facts, quantifiable loss, or legal authority that would release the sureties from liability. The affidavits provided do not identify specific agents or quantify any prejudice suffered. The alleged counterclaims are unquantified and have not been pursued by SAFAM, precluding reliance on Rule 22(4). The defences raised are perso…
Source excerpt
Minister of Water and Sanitation v Fumile Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (60250/2018; 86068/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 399 (14 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed the Minister’s enrichment claim and Fumile’s counterclaim after finding that neither illegality nor the value of services was proved.
Cope and Another v Liversage (4151/2021) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 20 (5 March 2025)
The court held that Rule 35(14) is intended solely for the purpose of pleading, and once the applicants have filed their plea, they are precluded from relying on Rule 35(14) to compel discovery. The applicants' request for documents to amend their plea or formulate a counterclaim falls outside the scope of Rule 35(14) and amounts to a fishing expedition. The proper procedure for compelling compliance with Rule 35(14) is through Rule 30A, which was not followed. Regarding Rule 35(3), the court found that the applicants failed to establish the relevance of the requested documents to the issues…
Source excerpt
Explore more
