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
Signal Hill Properties (Pty) Ltd v 3PE Scratch Repair (Pty) Ltd and Another (16/11689) [2016] ZAGPJHC 363 (9 December 2016)
The High Court granted eviction and monetary relief for unpaid rental and holding-over damages under a lease, and held the surety liable despite a novation defence.
Essay N.O and Others v Member of the Executive Committee for Education For the Province of KwaZulu Natal (7155/2011) [2014] ZAKZDHC 59 (8 December 2014)
High Court judgment awarding the Juma Musjid Trustees rental, holding-over damages, restoration costs, interest, and costs against the KwaZulu-Natal education MEC.
Fountainhead Property Trust and Another v Gospel Direct (Pty) Ltd and Another (70335/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 249 (11 April 2014)
High Court lease dispute: rental due during holding over was granted, but claims for renovation costs and future rental loss were dismissed.
Pangbourne Properties Ltd and Another v Your Life (Pty) Ltd and Another (2010/17427) [2013] ZAGPJHC 230; [2013] 4 All SA 719 (GSJ) (3 September 2013)
The court found that at the time the first plaintiff instituted action, its right to payment was ceded to its banker and did not vest in it, and subsequently was ceded to the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff, at the time of joinder, had its rights ceded to its banker, but a retrospective re-cession from the bank vested the claims in the second plaintiff from a date prior to joinder. The court exercised its discretion to allow the second plaintiff to proceed with the claims against the second defendant, as no prejudice was suffered by the defendant and the debt always vested in someone.…
Source excerpt
Byway Projects 10 CC v Masingita Autobody CC t/a Masingita Autobody and Others (A5059/10, 09/36885) [2011] ZAGPJHC 54 (14 June 2011)
The court held that the requirements for an anti-dissipation interdict were not met, as there was no evidence or reasonable apprehension that the respondents were dissipating or secreting assets, nor any urgency justifying ex parte relief. The lease agreement did not constitute an 'order for services' under section 23(2) of the Close Corporations Act, and thus personal liability could not be imposed on the second to fifth respondents. The appellant's claim for payment of arrears and damages was disputed and not liquidated, rendering motion proceedings inappropriate for such relief. The court…
Source excerpt
Explore more
