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
OSZ Tayob Trading Pietersburg (Pty) Ltd t/a EH Hassim v Ramusi and Others (4307/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 87 (6 May 2025)
The High Court declared two immovable properties specially executable to satisfy a judgment debt, rejecting non-joinder and estate-administration objections.
Nedbank v Lucas and Andre Van Der Westhuizen (Pty) Ltd and Others (7270/2023 ; 7516/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 45 (14 March 2025)
The High Court granted Nedbank summary judgment and declared the mortgaged farm properties executable, finding Rule 46A was not shown to apply.
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v De Lange and Another (52390/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 41 (22 January 2025)
The High Court granted default judgment to Standard Bank, declared mortgaged property executable, set a reserve price of R700,000, and awarded costs.
Rudolf Schoeman Landgoed BK v Valco Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (31/2022 and 32/2022) [2024] ZAMPMHC 39 (8 August 2024)
The court found that the clauses in question were suspensive conditions, not mere terms, as evidenced by their explicit wording and the context of negotiations. Valco, by permitting transfer and registration of the properties and paying VAT on the full purchase price before cession, unequivocally waived the suspensive condition. There was no evidence that the R2 million was a quid pro quo for cession, nor was there any provision to that effect in the agreements. The alleged misrepresentation by Schoeman Boerdery was not proven, as Valco was familiar with the requirements for lease cession and…
Source excerpt
De Beer N.O. v Smith N.O. and Others - Addendum to Judgment (524.2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 135 (16 May 2024)
The High Court corrected a Rule 42(1)(b) clerical error, adding an omitted property to the executable-property order and leaving the rescission dismissal intact.
Shoko v Nedbank (32115/21) [2024] ZAGPPHC 229 (4 March 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against summary judgment and execution, finding no bona fide defence or evidence of alternative payment.
Nedbank Limited v Mphambela and Another (1267/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 575 (19 July 2023)
The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the 14-day delay in filing the summary judgment application, which was not excessive and did not result from a deliberate disregard of the rules. The reasons advanced were accepted as sufficient for condonation in the interests of justice. On the merits, the respondents failed to raise a bona fide defence, relying instead on vague and unsupported averments regarding discussions and an offer to purchase that did not materialize. The respondents did not provide factual evidence or guarantees to support their claims. The co…
Source excerpt
Nedbank Limited v Mhlari N O and Others (37766/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 719; 2022 (6) SA 438 (GJ) (22 September 2022)
The court found that although the Trust Deed required at least three trustees, only two were appointed when the loan agreement was concluded. However, the trustees represented to the Plaintiff that they were authorised to act for the Trust and provided a resolution to that effect. The Plaintiff, as an outsider, could not have known of the internal non-compliance. The court held that the Trust is estopped from denying the authority of the trustees and is bound by the loan agreement. The Defendants, as sureties, are equally liable. The Defendants failed to lead evidence to support their counter…
Source excerpt
ABSA Bank Ltd v Woon and Another (2017/22794) [2022] ZAGPJHC 384 (31 May 2022)
The High Court granted ABSA judgment for a mortgage debt, declared the property specially executable, and set a reserve price after rejecting the respondent’s defences.
Koegelenberg N.O. and Others v Praia Rocha 122 Investments (Pty) Ltd (152/2019) [2021] ZANCHC 63 (26 November 2021)
The court found that the supplementary affidavit did not constitute a new summary judgment application but was ancillary to the original application, merely updating the amount due after subsequent payments. The summary judgment application was postponed sine die before the amendment of Rule 32, so the new rule does not apply. The respondent's defence, based on financial hardship due to the pandemic and weather, was found to be vague, lacking detail, and not a bona fide legal defence. The respondent failed to comply with the payment terms of the settlement agreement, triggering the accelerati…
Source excerpt
Explore more
