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
Nieuwoudt v Steyn and Another (2025-002319) [2025] ZAGPPHC 60 (22 January 2025)
Urgent spoliation relief was granted after the applicant was dispossessed of occupied property without a court order, and the second respondent was held bound by notice.
Nkondlwana v Letsaba and Others (Appeal) (CA14/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 79 (15 October 2024)
The court found that the appellant failed to establish a right to evict the respondents as unlawful occupiers. The evidence supported the respondent's version that a sale agreement was concluded with the deceased, witnessed by the appellant, and that the purchase price was paid in full. The absence of a written deed of alienation was explained by the circumstances, and the receipts corroborated the respondent's payments. The court a quo correctly applied the Plascon-Evans test, accepting the respondent's credible version and rejecting the appellant's. The doctrine of notice applied, binding t…
Source excerpt
MWRK Accountants and Consultants (Pty) Ltd v HLB International (South) Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (046596/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 481 (15 May 2024)
High Court set aside a property sale concluded contrary to prior court orders and granted relief under section 163 of the Companies Act.
N'Wandlamharhi Communal Property Association and Another v Westcott and Others (401/2021) [2022] ZASCA 129 (3 October 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the shareholders agreements did not create servitudes binding successors in title, so the respondents’ access and occupation rights ended on sale.
Mngomezulu NO. and Another v Mokoena and Others (20/37279) [2022] ZAGPJHC 178 (25 March 2022)
The High Court dismissed an application to cancel a title deed and bond over property, finding the applicants lacked locus standi and the claim had prescribed.
Brocsand (Pty) Ltd v Tip Trans Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others (925/19) [2020] ZASCA 144; 2021 (5) SA 457 (SCA) (4 November 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a right of first refusal cannot be extended by the Oryx mechanism or notice to acquire rights beyond the original grant.
Mogoera v Bosaaletse and Others (3222/2013) [2015] ZAFSHC 132 (26 June 2015)
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion on the facts or law. Rectification was not possible as no valid deed of sale existed, and even if it were possible, the trustees were innocent third parties who would be unfairly affected. Section 19 of the Alienation of Land Act did not apply to the transaction, as it was not a sale in instalments over more than one year. The real agreement between the seller and the trustees was invalid at the time of signing due to lack of authority, but transfe…
Source excerpt
Saligee-Quickfall v Daniels And Others (12659/2011) [2015] ZAWCHC 115 (10 June 2015)
The court ordered transfer of immovable property to the plaintiff, finding the defendants had notice of her prior contractual right when transfer was registered.
Tshinaki Septic Tankc Cleaners (Pty) Ltd v Somhlalo and Others (988/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 45 (10 March 2015)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of fraud, forgery, or simulation in the second sale agreement between the respondents and the third respondent. The third respondent's version, supported by its affidavit, established that it purchased and received delivery of the TLBs after the original sale agreement was cancelled. However, the court held that the doctrine of notice applies, as the third respondent acquired the TLBs with knowledge of the applicant's prior rights. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to claim that the transfer to the third respondent…
Source excerpt
Jamieson and Another v Loderf (Pty) Ltd and Others (A595/2011) [2015] ZAWCHC 18 (20 February 2015)
The court found that the version advanced by Loderf regarding voluntary surrender of possession was not credible and should have been rejected on the papers. The Jamiesons were entitled to spoliation relief at the time of the application and judgment in the court a quo. However, subsequent sale and transfer of the flats to innocent third parties without notice of the dispute rendered restoration of possession impossible. The spoliation remedy does not extend to innocent third parties who acquire possession in good faith. The court substituted the order of the court a quo with a declaration th…
Source excerpt
Explore more
