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
Bridge Taxi Finance No 05 (Pty) Ltd v Sithele (4948/24 ; 4949/24 ; 4950/24 ; 4946/24) [2025] ZANWHC 93 (5 June 2025)
The High Court removed ex parte applications for preservation of taxi vehicles from the roll, finding the affidavits speculative and unsupported.
Mokasule v Botha N.O and Others (Reasons) (MG105/2019) [2025] ZANWHC 146 (19 May 2025)
The High Court refused condonation and rescission of a sequestration order, struck out a late replying affidavit, and ordered the applicant to pay costs.
SA Taxi Development Finance (Pty) Ltd v Muleba (2024/141745; 2024/137423; 2024/139338; 2024/139331; 2024/139330; 2024/141807; 2024/141815; 2024/141799) [2025] ZAGPJHC 433 (2 May 2025)
The court found that, although the applications were brought ex parte and without prior notice to the respondents, the applicants had established a prima facie right to interim relief based on uncontested evidence of default and the risk of vehicle stripping in the taxi industry. The urgency and nature of the business justified immediate attachment to preserve the value of the vehicles, and the rule nisi procedure provided respondents with an opportunity to challenge the order on the return day or anticipate it on 24 hours' notice. The court distinguished prior authority cited by applicants,…
Source excerpt
Saunderson v ABSA Bank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (2395/2022) [2024] ZANCHC 110 (13 December 2024)
The court found that Saunderson failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal or any compelling reason for the matter to proceed to appeal. The court held that the attachment of documents to the founding affidavit in summary judgment proceedings is permissible and necessary under the amended Rule 32, provided the documents support the plaintiff's contentions regarding the absence of a bona fide defence. Saunderson had sufficient opportunity to respond to the additional evidence and could have attached his own documentary evidence. His defences regarding reckless credit, sect…
Source excerpt
Standard Bank of South Africa and Another v Nel (2721/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 403 (12 December 2024)
High Court summary judgment decision on multiple credit and loan claims, refusing judgment on claims tied to liquidation issues but granting it on two account-based claims.
Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank v Sayelo (Pty) Ltd t/a Giani Dry Cleaners and Laundry (2023-039069) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1282 (29 November 2024)
The High Court granted summary judgment to Firstrand Bank on two credit agreements, rejecting the defendant’s NCA, liquid document, and deponent objections.
Mbonani v Cars for Africa (Pty) Ltd (NCT/303321/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 63 (25 November 2024)
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide evidence of a purchase agreement with the respondent supplier and relied solely on the instalment agreement with Standard Bank. The respondent sold the vehicle to Standard Bank, not directly to the applicant, and Standard Bank retained ownership as security for the debt. The Tribunal held that the instalment agreement is excluded from the CPA by section 5(2)(d), and the rights and obligations arising from it are regulated by the National Credit Act. As no consumer agreement existed between the applicant and the respondent, the Tribunal l…
Source excerpt
Scania Finance Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Hulk Haulers (Pty) Limited (D8414/2020) [2024] ZAKZDHC 58 (30 August 2024)
The High Court confirmed a provisional liquidation order and placed the respondent under final liquidation, finding the debt liquid and the dispute not bona fide.
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.
ABSA Bank Limited v Monalebo Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another (001873/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 314 (5 April 2024)
The court found that the Second Defendant was bound as a co-principal debtor under the suretyship agreement, and his liability was triggered by the First Defendant's default and liquidation. The defenses raised by the Second Defendant, including the distinction between suretyship and credit guarantee, alleged non-compliance with the National Credit Act, and challenges to the affidavit's validity, were found to be without merit and bad in law. The court held that the applicant's claim was for a liquidated amount, properly supported by documentation, and that the Second Defendant's opposition w…
Source excerpt
Explore more
