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
L.C v J.C and Others (17335/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 247 (9 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an exception to a damages claim based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentation in a divorce settlement, finding the claim was not res judicata.
Vusi Jiyane Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd v Govan Mbeki Local Municipality (3826/2020) [2024] ZAMPMHC 46 (28 August 2024)
The court found that the Plaintiff had been provided with the accounts envisaged by section 95(e) of the Systems Act and had declared a formal dispute regarding their accuracy. The Plaintiff's reliance on section 95 for the delivery and debatement of accounts was misplaced, as the section does not expressly or impliedly confer such a right. The Plaintiff's reference to the Credit Control and Debt Collection Policy was also rejected, as the policy provides mechanisms for contesting accounts but does not include delivery and debatement as remedies. The relationship between the parties was found…
Source excerpt
Talacar Holdings (Pty) Ltd v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (44294/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 250 (8 March 2023)
The High Court discharged a rule nisi seeking contempt findings and perjury charges over disputed municipal billing orders, and awarded costs against the applicant.
Ralebipi v Beau Rivage Homeowners Association (A159/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 372 (19 December 2022)
Appeal against summary judgment for homeowners association levies, penalties and utility charges dismissed; court held the claims were liquidated and the defence was not bona fide.
Business Partners Limited v African Dune Investments 275 (Pty) Ltd and Another (999/2022P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 70 (7 November 2022)
The court found that the applicant did not establish oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct by the respondents as required under section 163 of the Companies Act. The mere possibility of a stalemate between directors does not justify the appointment of an independent director. The relief sought in paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 of the notice of motion was contrary to or already provided for in the shareholders agreement. However, the applicant, due to its unique position as both shareholder and bondholder, owes a fiduciary duty to provide a debatement of account to the respondents. The court gran…
Source excerpt
Norris v Nedbank Ltd (22916/09) [2022] ZAGPJHC 908 (6 September 2022)
The High Court held that amended Rule 66 on writs of execution applies retrospectively and dismissed an application to set aside a writ and recover funds.
BBT Electrical and Plumbing Construction and Maintenance CC t/a BBT Construction v Retmil Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (A120/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 199 (14 September 2021)
The court found that while the appellant established a contractual relationship and the right to receive an account, it failed to demonstrate that the accounts rendered by the respondent were insufficient. The appellant did not specify any deficiencies in the statements provided, relying only on discrepancies in amounts claimed, which could be attributed to settlement negotiations or fluctuating costs. The application was brought by way of motion proceedings, and the Plascon Evans-rule applied, requiring that factual disputes be resolved in favour of the respondent. The court held that the ap…
Source excerpt
Dube and Another v Off the Grid CC and Others (2019/29442) [2020] ZAGPJHC 141 (7 April 2020)
The High Court held the applicants owed a final balance under a building contract and awarded judgment and costs to the respondents.
BBT Electrical and Plumbing Construction and Maintenance CC t/a BBT Construction (2690/2015) [2020] ZAFSHC 66 (24 February 2020)
The High Court dismissed BBT’s application for a statement and debatement of account, finding no sufficient pleaded contractual basis or proof of defective accounting.
Coetzee v Coetzee N.O and Others (78882/15) [2020] ZAGPPHC 92 (9 January 2020)
The court found that the order of Acting Justice Mbongwe was clear and unambiguous: any dispute arising from the debatement of account was to be referred to the High Court by way of a new action or application for final determination within thirty days after the debatement. The order did not grant leave to file supplementary affidavits in the same application. The filing of the supplementary founding affidavit by the applicant, after the final order and without a new Notice of Motion, constituted an irregular proceeding under Rule 30. The matter was res judicata as far as the original applica…
Source excerpt
Explore more
