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
Myburg N.O v Moolman and Others (2024/032378) [2025] ZAGPPHC 424 (30 April 2025)
Executor obtained interim relief compelling return of a Porsche from a purchaser who relied on an unsigned estate sale agreement and a disputed agency arrangement.
Rapoo v Modise and Others (2019/19990) [2025] ZAGPJHC 391 (22 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to cancel a deed of transfer because the applicant lacked standing to act for the deceased estates.
Adoro v Monchusi (A19/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 188 (23 August 2021)
The High Court held that an executrix must act in a representative capacity, not personally, when bringing eviction proceedings on behalf of a deceased estate.
Zwane v Marenene and Others (2190A/2019) [2020] ZAECMHC 19 (9 June 2020)
The court confirmed a final interdict protecting the applicant’s occupation, identity document, and estate administration rights as executor.
Meintjies and Meintjies Rekenmeesters CC v Annadale and Another (81541/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 975 (10 December 2019)
The High Court found that the first respondent was contracted to provide accounting services on a profit-share basis, not to take over the business.
Nkwana v Lekgoathi and Another (34680/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 193 (17 May 2017)
The court found that the applicant was not the nominated executor in the deceased's will and that her appointment as executrix had been cancelled by the Master of the High Court. On her own version, she lacked locus standi to prosecute the application. The transfer of the property was effected by a representative of the estate, but the applicant failed to demonstrate that she was authorised to challenge the transfer. The application for a stay was also without foundation due to lack of service and non-appearance. Consequently, the application to set aside the transfer was dismissed, as the ap…
Source excerpt
J N.O. v M N.O. (27314/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 264 (12 February 2014)
The High Court authorised an executor to transfer jointly owned property to the auction purchaser despite the co-owner’s opposition, finding the sale fair and equitable.
Basil Read (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mine Workers and Another; In re: National Union of Mine Workers and Another v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1591/2009) [2013] ZALCJHB 352; (2014) 35 ILJ 2153 (LC) (4 December 2013)
The court found that the respondents failed to prosecute the review application with reasonable diligence, resulting in excessive and unexplained delay. The respondents did not comply with the court order to secure appointment of an executrix for the deceased employee's estate, and the trade union lacked authority to persist with the review application in the absence of such appointment. The court accepted the respondents' version regarding receipt of the Rule 11 application and held that condonation for late filing of the answering affidavit was not required. The Rule 11 application was prop…
Source excerpt
Booysen and Others v Booysen and Others (29558/10) [2011] ZAGPJHC 27; 2012 (2) SA 38 (GSJ) (25 March 2011)
The court held that Joseph Booysen, as the surviving spouse, did not acquire sole ownership of the joint estate upon his wife's death and therefore lacked legal capacity to sell the immovable property. Only the executor, appointed in terms of the joint will and by the Master, had authority to deal with estate assets. The sale agreement and addendum were concluded without the executor's consent and before the estate was finalised, rendering the sale invalid. Furthermore, the sale did not comply with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act, as it was not signed by the executor or an agent ac…
Source excerpt
Elderberry Investments 91 (Pty) Ltd v Reddy NO and Others (7194/2009) [2010] ZAKZDHC 15 (13 April 2010)
The court found that the mandate given by the executor respondents to the eighth respondent was a lawful delegation and not an abdication of their duties. The 'Letters of Authorization' did not relieve the executors of their responsibilities but merely empowered the eighth respondent to conclude the sale agreement on their behalf. Section 52 of the Administration of Estates Act prohibits abdication, not delegation, and the facts did not support the respondents' contention that the sale agreement was void. The sale agreement was therefore binding and enforceable, and the applicant was entitled…
Source excerpt
Explore more
