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
Han v First National Bank Ltd and Others (14048/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 435 (7 May 2025)
The High Court separated one plaintiff’s claim from a consolidated damages action after finding her case sufficiently distinct and burdened by delays.
Royal Energy Management Services (Pty) Ltd v Carse N.O (6426/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 241 (23 November 2021)
The court found that the requirement for the applicant to provide a bank guarantee for the balance of the purchase price was a suspensive condition, not a mere term. The applicant's inability to obtain the guarantee, despite reasonable efforts, meant the suspensive condition was not fulfilled, rendering the agreement inchoate. The respondent did not pursue specific performance and failed to establish any contractual right to retain the deposit. The common law and the law of depositum require restoration of the deposit and the sum paid for the movable property, together with interest, in the a…
Source excerpt
H & H Gear Repair Centre v Boating International CC (17501/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 122 (24 March 2016)
The High Court held that the plaintiff was bound by an indemnity clause on a signed job card and dismissed the claim with costs.
Motowest Bikes & ATVS v Calvern Financial Services (138/13) [2013] ZASCA 196 (2 December 2013)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a car wash had a depositum duty to safeguard a customer's vehicle, and that an undisclosed owner's risk clause did not bar liability.
Eyer v Three Lions Parts CC (A672/2010) [2011] ZAGPPHC 174 (22 September 2011)
Appeal dismissed after the appellant failed to prove the quantum of damages for a vehicle destroyed by fire while in the respondent’s custody.
Motloung v Honda Auto Bloemfontein and Another (1268/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 44 (31 May 2007)
Urgent application to compel return of a vehicle failed after a factual dispute over whether the first respondent tampered with the alarm system.
Explore more
