Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Family And Children [2023] ZAGPPHC 308

Matshaya v Mapatha and Others

Matshaya v Mapatha and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 308; 50451/21 (9 May 2023)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
50451/21
Judge
De Beer

The court found that the applicant was a bona fide third party who relied on formal legal documents indicating the seller was unmarried. There was no evidence that the applicant could reasonably have known of the marriage or lack of consent from the second respondent. The court applied section 15(9)(a) of the Matrimonial Property Act, granting deemed consent and validating the sale and transfer. The second respondent, having lost co-ownership post-transfer, was found to be in unlawful occupation. The requirements for eviction under the PIE Act were satisfied, and the court determined that a f…

Source excerpt

  • Matrimonial Property Act
  • Customary Marriage
  • Unlawful Occupation
  • Eviction Under Pie Act
  • Deemed Consent
  • Transfer Of Immovable Property
Read case analysis
Family And Children [2020] ZASCA 167

Vukeya v Ntshane and Others (518/2019)

Vukeya v Ntshane and Others (518/2019) [2020] ZASCA 167; 2022 (2) SA 452 (SCA) (11 December 2020)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
518/2019
Judges
Maya, Dambuza, Mocumie, Plasket, Goosen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant did not know and could not reasonably have known that the deceased was married and required spousal consent for the sale of the property. The appellant relied on official documents and representations indicating the deceased was unmarried, and there was nothing to put him on enquiry. The Court found that the protection afforded by s 15(9)(a) of the Matrimonial Property Act applied, and the first respondent was deemed to have consented to the sale. The high court erred by failing to consider s 15(9)(a) and by not adopting a contextual and hol…

Source excerpt

  • Matrimonial Property Act
  • Sale Of Immovable Property
  • Consent In Community Of Property
  • Deemed Consent
  • Transfer Of Property
  • Duty Of Enquiry
Read case analysis
Family And Children [2020] ZASCA 148

Mulaudzi v Mudau and Others (1034/2019)

Mulaudzi v Mudau and Others (1034/2019) [2020] ZASCA 148 (18 November 2020)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
1034/2019
Judges
Van der Merwe, Makgoka, Plasket, Ledwaba, Mabindla-Boqwana

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the sale of the property by the second respondent, who was married in community of property, without the written consent of his spouse, would ordinarily be invalid under s 15(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Property Act. However, s 15(9)(a) provides that if the purchaser did not know and could not reasonably have known that the required consent was lacking, the transaction is deemed valid. The appellant established that she did not know and could not reasonably have known of the second respondent's marital status, relying on his representations in the sale agree…

Source excerpt

  • Matrimonial Property Act
  • Sale Of Immovable Property
  • Consent In Marriage
  • Deemed Consent
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Read case analysis
Family And Children [2020] ZASCA 23

Marais N.O. and Another v Maposa and Others (642/2018)

Marais N.O. and Another v Maposa and Others (642/2018) [2020] ZASCA 23; 2020 (5) SA 111 (SCA) (25 March 2020)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
642/2018
Judges
Petse, Mbha, Van der Merwe, Plasket, Nicholls

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the donation of 75% of the members' interest in Seepunt Eiendomme CC from the joint estate required the consent of the non-contracting spouse, Ms Broodie, under section 15(3)(c) of the Matrimonial Property Act. The transaction prejudiced her interests and thus required her consent. The respondents, particularly Ms Ledwaba, knew of the marriage but made no enquiries as to the marital regime or the necessity of consent. The court found that the respondents failed to meet the objective standard of reasonable enquiry required to rely on deemed consent under s…

Source excerpt

  • Matrimonial Property Act
  • Donation Of Joint Estate Assets
  • Consent Requirement
  • Deemed Consent
  • Void Transfer
  • Executor Substitution
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.