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
Applicant X v Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service (2022/12) [2022] ZATC 11; 85 SATC 382 (21 December 2022)
Tax Court dismissed a default judgment application after finding the applicant failed to deliver notices to the correct SARS address and failed to serve SARS.
Superway Construction (Pty) Ltd v Swafo, In re: Swafo v MEC for Roads and Transport, Limpopo and Others (2013/32786) [2017] ZAGPPHC 101 (14 February 2017)
The High Court dismissed an application for an attorney’s cost liability order after finding no proper delivery of a notice of withdrawal under Rule 41.
Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank v Baliso (4064/2013) [2015] ZAWCHC 146 (21 January 2015)
The court held that section 127(2)(b) of the National Credit Act does not require delivery of the notice by registered mail, nor does it require compliance with the Sebola guidelines applicable to section 129(1) notices. The statutory language and context distinguish the surrender of goods procedure from debt enforcement, and section 65 of the NCA explicitly allows delivery by ordinary mail. The plaintiff's particulars of claim were sufficient, and the exception was dismissed. The defendant's alternative prayer for adjournment was also dismissed as the plaintiff had complied with the procedur…
Source excerpt
Delmon Mining And Civils (Pty) Ltd T/A Delmon Aviation v Citijet Air Charter (Pty) Ltd and Others (37102/14) [2014] ZAGPJHC 264 (17 October 2014)
An urgent application to compel return of aircraft logbooks was granted. The court rejected claims of lien, confidentiality, and reputational risk as grounds for withholding them.
Absa Bank Limited v Mykatrade 361 CC t/a CMC Boksburg (46917/2010) [2011] ZAGPJHC 251 (9 December 2011)
The court found that the applicant had proved ownership of the vehicles by virtue of the floorplan and agency agreements with CMC East London and payment to CCE Holdings. Delivery to CMC East London was on behalf of the applicant, and the applicant obtained physical possession pursuant to a court order. The respondent failed to establish that CCE Holdings or CMC East London intended to transfer ownership to it, nor did it prove derivative acquisition of ownership. Possession of eNatis documents and registration as dealer stock did not confer ownership, especially given the respondent's knowle…
Source excerpt
Msiza v Road Accident Fund (17335/2004) [2008] ZAGPHC 186 (23 June 2008)
The High Court held that an RAF claim delivered at 16:47 on 8 July 2002 was lodged in time, so the prescription special plea failed.
Explore more
