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
Mofiko v Mthophe and Others (2024/044182) [2025] ZAGPJHC 772 (7 August 2025)
Eviction application dismissed because the respondent’s occupation remained lawful under an extant sale agreement and no lawful termination was shown.
Lesedi Local Municipality v Heidelberg Beer Festival CC (2025/040312) [2025] ZAGPJHC 755 (4 August 2025)
The High Court granted Lesedi Local Municipality urgent relief against an unlawfully occupying tenant, ordering it to stop trading and vacate the premises.
Mncadi and Another v Langa (AR195/2024) [2025] ZAKZPHC 71 (1 August 2025)
Appeal dismissed; the respondent’s open, uninterrupted occupation for over 30 years proved acquisitive prescription and ownership of the property.
Tsontswane v Shahzaib Gondal Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (6286/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 130 (1 August 2025)
The application failed because the applicant did not plead or prove which clauses of the lease agreement were breached, nor did he set out the necessary facts substantiating his claims. The founding affidavit was vague and deficient, lacking the material facts required to sustain the cause of action. The applicant attempted to supplement his case through replying affidavits and heads of argument, which is impermissible. Relief against respondents who were not properly served or were not parties to the lease agreement was not competent. The applicant's conduct suggested an ulterior motive for…
Source excerpt
Norvena Property Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Mashamba and Others (2022/018083) [2025] ZAGPJHC 683 (7 July 2025)
The High Court granted an eviction order after finding the applicant had complied with PIE, proved substantial rental arrears, and the respondent had no valid defence.
WD Motors (Pty) Ltd v Shell South Africa Refining (Pty) Limited and Others (5341/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 179 (17 June 2025)
The High Court granted eviction after finding lease breaches, including unauthorized subletting, non-ancillary use, and maintenance defaults, and held the lease was validly cancelled.
Dawood and Others v Molebele and Others (2013/35000) [2025] ZAGPJHC 585 (9 June 2025)
High Court eviction matter following cancelled sales in execution. The court cured short service by postponement, found eviction just and equitable, and granted costs on scale C.
Ellison v Breytenbach N.O and Another (A278/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 565 (5 June 2025)
The court held that the Kollapen order did not constitute a new South African sequestration order but rather recognised the UK bankruptcy and empowered the first respondent to administer the appellant's South African assets. The appellant remained an undischarged bankrupt in the UK, and the findings of Kollapen J were res iudicata before Collis J. The court a quo had no jurisdiction to reinterpret or vary the Kollapen order, and the appellant's contentions regarding rehabilitation and the effect of time were without merit. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis to overturn the evictio…
Source excerpt
Mandeni Municipality v Independent Ethiopian Church of South Africa and Another (10273/2015) [2025] ZAKZDHC 36 (4 June 2025)
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the municipality failed to show a right to evict from either property and its bias allegations were unsubstantiated.
Unlawful Occupiers [...] A[...] Street and Others v Rohlandt Holding CC and Others (7583/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 512 (27 May 2025)
The court found that the applicants failed to clarify the original order at the time it was granted and have delayed resolution by not providing the record. However, given the number of vulnerable persons affected and the ongoing dispute regarding alternate accommodation, immediate execution would result in injustice. The underlying causa remains in dispute, and the court exercised its discretion under Rule 45A to stay execution for four months. The applicants must deliver the record within two months, and the parties are to seek further directions for finalisation. The court refused to revis…
Source excerpt
Explore more
