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

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2017] ZACC 15

Off-Beat Holiday Club and Another v Sanbonani Holiday Spa Shareblock Limited and Others (CCT106/16)

Off-Beat Holiday Club and Another v Sanbonani Holiday Spa Shareblock Limited and Others (CCT106/16) [2017] ZACC 15; 2017 (7) BCLR 916 (CC); 2017 (5) SA 9 (CC) (23 May 2017)

The Constitutional Court held that claims brought under section 252 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 for equitable relief do not constitute 'debts' as defined by the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. The Court reasoned that the relief sought is not for payment of money, delivery of goods, or rendering of services, but rather for a judicial determination of fairness in company governance. The wide discretion conferred by section 252 allows the court to consider delay and other factors when granting relief, but does not render the claim susceptible to extinctive prescription. The Court found that the…

  • Companies Act Section 252
  • Prescription Act Interpretation
  • Minority Shareholder Remedies
  • Declaratory Relief
  • Access To Courts
  • Equitable Remedies
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2010] ZAGPJHC 15

Portion 29 Golden Highway (Pty) Ltd v Patel and Another (A5038/07)

Portion 29 Golden Highway (Pty) Ltd v Patel and Another (A5038/07) [2010] ZAGPJHC 15; [2010] 4 All SA 219 (GSJ) (25 March 2010)

The court held that the respondents were not impoverished nor was the appellant unjustly enriched to the extent claimed, as the respondents received rental income during their occupation of the property, which offset the majority of the purchase price paid. The failed agreement was not due to the appellant's breach but to non-fulfilment of a suspensive condition. The court found that only the deposit of R300,000 constituted unjust enrichment, as the respondents did not receive ownership of the property for this payment and no countervailing performance was provided. The appellant's countercla…

  • Unjust Enrichment
  • Condictio Indebiti
  • Sale Of Immovable Property
  • Suspensive Condition
  • Restitution
  • Equitable Remedies
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.