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
Van der Westhuizen v Strombeck Pieterse Incorporated and Others (851/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 25 (3 April 2018)
The High Court refused to separate a legal issue under Rule 33(4), holding that the question was tied to contract interpretation and should be heard with the main case.
Tlotlego (2017/34672), Ex parte [2017] ZAGPJHC 376 (8 December 2017)
High Court held that unpaid university fees and the absence of a degree certificate did not bar admission as an advocate under section 3 of the Act.
Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Parker (103/2014) [2014] ZASCA 223; 2015 (4) SA 28 (SCA); [2015] 1 All SA 525 (SCA); 2015 (2) SACR 109 (SCA); 77 SATC 224 (12 December 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a VAT vendor’s failure to pay over collected VAT is not theft. The VAT Act creates a debtor-creditor relationship, not a trust.
Janse van Rensburg NO and Others v Botha (758/10) [2011] ZASCA 72 (25 May 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld a liquidators’ claim to set aside payments under s 29 of the Insolvency Act in the Krion pyramid scheme.
Ferreira v Roux and Another (428/09) [2010] ZAECPEHC 57 (14 September 2010)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish any contractual, statutory, or fiduciary basis obliging the defendants to deliver a specified account. The agreement merely determined the scope of the plaintiff's remuneration, and the facts showed he had access to all relevant cost information during the contract's execution. The relationship between the parties was that of ordinary debtor and creditor, not one creating a duty to render an account. Precedent confirms that such a duty arises only from a fiduciary relationship, statute, or express contractual term, none of which were pres…
Source excerpt
Fedbond Participation Mortgage Bond Managers (Pty) Ltd v Investec Employee Benefits Ltd and Others (211/09) [2010] ZASCA 42; [2010] 4 All SA 467 (SCA) (31 March 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written agreement between Fedbond and Investec governed the investment, providing for a five-year minimum period and withdrawal upon notice. The alleged common understanding was inconsistent with the written terms and inadmissible as extrinsic evidence. Fedbond's failure to respond to the withdrawal notice amounted to withholding consent without reason, which is not permitted under the scheme rules. The manager's obligations under the agreement and rules require payment to participants who have complied with the withdrawal procedures, establishing a d…
Source excerpt
Explore more
