South Africa Case Law

Ranthako N.O v Chelin (17108/2022)

Ranthako N.O v Chelin (17108/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1905 (17 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

17108/2022

Judge

Millar

The court found that the respondent was entitled to exercise a contractual lien over the horses for unpaid stabling and upkeep fees, but that this lien did not extend to the horse passports. The passports, while necessary for competitions and transport, do not constitute possession or control of the horses themselves. Once the respondent relinquished possession of two horses, Valentia and Lux, she lost her lien over them and should have delivered their passports to the applicant. In respect of Volare, the respondent retained possession and control, but the ongoing costs and diminishing value…

Source excerpt

• Debtor Creditor Lien
• Vindication
• Security For Debt
• Delivery Of Property

Omezi v Edike and Others (B3624/2023)

Omezi v Edike and Others (B3624/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 623 (1 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B3624/2023

Judge

C J van der Westhuizen

Urgent High Court relief was granted ordering delivery of a pledged Mercedes Benz and its registration papers as security for an investment agreement.

• Specific Performance
• Pledge And Security
• Urgent Interdict
• Delivery Of Property
• Urgent-applications
• Specific-performance

Pretorius v Zwane NO (60438/2015)

Pretorius v Zwane NO (60438/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 66 (2 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

60438/2015

Judge

W R C Prinsloo

High Court held that the plaintiff owned 692 bales of Eragrostis grass and ordered delivery of the bales; the alternative claim was separated.

• Ownership Of Fruits
• Delivery Of Property
• Bona Fide Possession
• Contractual Rights
• Rule 33 4 Separation
• Costs Order

Panatel CC t/a Panasonic Business Systems v Putter and Others (2528/2015)

Panatel CC t/a Panasonic Business Systems v Putter and Others (2528/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 250 (14 August 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2528/2015

Judge

M. H. Rampai

An unopposed High Court application succeeded after the respondents consented to delivery of items listed in the sheriff’s inventory to the applicant’s attorney.

• Delivery Of Property
• Consent Order
• Civil-procedure
• Consent-orders
• Delivery-of-property
• Unopposed-application

BMW Financial Services (SA) (Pty) v Sibanda (75945/2013)

BMW Financial Services (SA) (Pty) v Sibanda (75945/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 392 (23 June 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

75945/2013

Judge

TM Makgoka

Summary judgment was granted for delivery of a BMW motor vehicle after the defendant failed to show a bona fide defence to default under the credit agreement.

• Summary Judgment
• Credit Agreement Default
• Delivery Of Property
• Equitable Defence
• Summary-judgment
• Credit-agreement-default

Keyter N.O. v Van Der Muelen N.O. and Another (2906/2013)

Keyter N.O. v Van Der Muelen N.O. and Another (2906/2013) [2014] ZAECGHC 28; 2014 (5) SA 215 (ECG) (6 May 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

2906/2013

Judge

Plasket

The court found that all requirements for lis alibi pendens were met, but justice, equity, and the balance of convenience favoured determining the application rather than staying it. The tender to deliver the sheep was binding and not inchoate, as subsequent negotiations to vary its terms were unsuccessful and did not affect the original tender. The court held that an executor of a deceased estate may validly cede rights vested in the estate to another executor or third party, relying on direct authority and legal commentary. The respondent, being in possession of the sheep and having tendere…

Source excerpt

• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Cession By Executor
• Delivery Of Property
• Costs Order

Strydom and Another v Liebenberg (293/06)

Strydom and Another v Liebenberg (293/06) [2007] ZASCA 117; [2007] SCA 117 (RSA) (25 September 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

293/06

Judges

Scott, Cachalia, Kgomo

The court held that the plaintiff retained ownership of the game on the properties, but could not recover its value because it could not be apportioned between defendants.

• Vindicatory Action
• Ownership Of Game
• Delivery Of Property
• Apportionment Of Value
• Vindicatory-action
• Ownership-of-game

Venter NO en 'n Ander v Carels (634/94)

Venter NO en 'n Ander v Carels (634/94) [1996] ZASCA 52 (23 May 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

634/94

Judges

Botha, Smalberger, Nienaber, Olivier, Zulman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 84(1) of the Insolvency Act applies even where the insolvent is not in possession of the movable property at the time of sequestration. The conflicting authorities were resolved by the court's own prior decision in Venter NO v Avfin (Pty) Ltd, which confirmed that the seller's rights are protected and a silent hypothec is created for the outstanding purchase price. The respondent's reliance on UDC Bank Ltd v Seacat Leasing and Finance Co (Pty) Ltd and Another was misplaced, as that reasoning has been expressly rejected. The respondent's additional…

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Act Section 84
• Ownership Transfer
• Silent Hypothec
• Delivery Of Property