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
Goldleaf Investments (Pty) Ltd v Orkin (22321/18) [2024] ZAGPJHC 695 (22 July 2024)
Leave to appeal was dismissed in a dispute over a tacit term requiring a fully serviced site, electrical supply delays, and claimed damages.
Strydom Britz Mohulatsi Inc. v Mouton (64226/2011) [2016] ZAGPPHC 903 (11 October 2016)
The court found that the plaintiff did not breach the mandate to act professionally and diligently in prosecuting the RAF claim. The defendant failed to provide necessary documents despite repeated requests, which contributed to any delay in settlement. The defendant's counterclaim for damages in the form of mora interest was dismissed because there was no principal debt owing from the plaintiff to the defendant, and the law does not permit recovery of such damages in these circumstances. The plaintiff's claim for fees was supported by a taxed bill of costs, which was not disputed. Judgment w…
Source excerpt
Koukoudis and Another v Abrina and Another (20747/2014) [2016] ZASCA 95; [2016] 3 All SA 398 (SCA); 2016 (5) SA 352 (SCA) (2 June 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents failed to prove both the subjective and objective requirements for a claim based on abuse of rights. The evidence did not establish that the appellants acted with the sole or predominant intention to harm the respondents; rather, the objection and appeal were motivated by a legitimate commercial interest in protecting the value and viability of the Mall@Reds shopping centre. The court found that the respondents' case was speculative and lacked cogency, and that the appellants' conduct was not wrongful under South African law. The appeal su…
Source excerpt
Margalit v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (883/2011) [2012] ZASCA 208; 2013 (2) SA 466 (SCA); [2013] 2 All SA 377 (SCA) (3 December 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the second respondent, acting as Standard Bank's conveyancer, was negligent in failing to prepare and lodge the necessary documents for cancellation of both mortgage bonds over the property. The evidence showed that the second respondent had possession of a copy of the title deed reflecting both bonds but inexplicably prepared papers for cancellation of only one bond, resulting in rejection by the deeds office and delay in transfer. Further, the second respondent failed to ensure that affidavits required under regulation 68(1) were properly attested in a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
