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
Harold v Matloga N.O and Others (JR 95/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 217 (9 June 2025)
Review dismissed: the Labour Court upheld a CCMA award finding the applicant’s dismissal for absenteeism substantively fair.
Maher v Avianto (Pty) Ltd (A2023/097547) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1163; [2025] 1 All SA 410 (GJ) (12 November 2024)
Covid-19 lockdown made the wedding venue unavailable on the agreed date, extinguishing the contract and entitling the appellant to a full refund.
Educated Risk Investments 54 (Pty) Ltd v Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others (A5072/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 942 (19 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against confirmation of a liquidation and distribution account, holding the remedy lay in PAJA review and that reopening was barred after distribution began.
Reder Construction (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure of the Republic of South Africa and Another (4215/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 300 (17 September 2024)
The court held that COVID-19 lockdown regulations did not create supervening impossibility and ordered payment of the contractor’s claimed additional costs.
Boesch N.O and Others v Mason Africa Group (Pty) Limited (2021/55096) [2023] ZAGPJHC 929 (18 April 2023)
Summary judgment in a commercial lease dispute was dismissed because the plaintiffs did not adequately meet Rule 32 and the claim was not liquidated.
Ozmik Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v Diplobox (Pty) Ltd and Others (58806/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 836 (27 October 2022)
High Court summary judgment in a lease dispute: the court found a valid lease, rejected the defence based on COVID-19 deprivation, and ordered payment.
Circle Properties (Pty) Ltd v Mashavana and Another (2021/13340) [2022] ZAGPJHC 385 (3 June 2022)
The court found that the respondent's defences were without merit. The alleged oral agreement was invalid due to the written non-variation clause in the lease. The dispute over arrear rental was irrelevant as payments made after cancellation were allocated to arrears, and the applicant was not seeking payment. The respondent failed to provide evidence of any vulnerability or inability to secure alternative accommodation. The COVID-19 regulations did not prohibit eviction but required the court to consider health risks, which the respondent did not allege would be negatively affected. The appl…
Source excerpt
Ali and Another v S (A212/21) [2021] ZAWCHC 245; 2022 (1) SACR 281 (WCC) (25 November 2021)
The magistrate erred in refusing bail without adequately considering the appellants' claimed refugee status and constitutional rights. The magistrate failed to ensure that sufficient and reliable information was placed before the court regarding the appellants' attempts to regularize their status and their access to Home Affairs during the Covid-19 lockdown. The magistrate did not allow the prosecution a full opportunity to address the court, nor did he stand the matter down to enable the defence to provide further information. The principles of the Refugees Act and the Constitution require t…
Source excerpt
Freestone Property Investment (Pty) Ltd vs Remake Consultants CC and Another (2020/29927) [2021] ZAGPJHC 150; 2021 (6) SA 470 (GJ) (25 August 2021)
Summary judgment in a commercial lease dispute: ejectment was granted, but leave to defend remained on arrear rental claims arising from Covid-19 lockdown disruptions.
Andreini and Others v Mbunu and Others (28918/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 685 (17 August 2021)
The applicants, as registered owners, lawfully cancelled the lease agreements after the respondents breached by failing to pay rent and utilities. The respondents’ opposition is based on bare denials and unsupported claims regarding refunds and jurisdiction. The jurisdiction clause does not preclude the High Court’s competence. The respondents have no bona fide defence and remain in unlawful occupation. The court considered the personal circumstances of the respondents, including income, dependents, and alleged disabilities, and found they would not be rendered homeless. The applicants compli…
Source excerpt
Explore more
