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
Pomona Energy Proprietary Limited v Van Der Berg and Others (2024-015638) [2024] ZAGPJHC 262 (12 March 2024)
An urgent spoliation application failed because the applicant could not prove undisturbed possession of the entire site on 29 January 2024.
Northcliff Ridge Homeowners Association and Another v Swart NO and Others (004567/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 387 (13 April 2023)
The High Court granted leave to appeal, holding that another court could differ on which homeowners’ association rules applied and whether there was non-compliance.
Moranduzzo v Stewart and Another (16049/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 801 (22 October 2021)
The court found that a valid lease agreement existed between the applicant and first respondent, despite the lack of signature by the respondent, as her conduct indicated acceptance of the agreement. The respondent's occupation and payment of rental confirmed the existence and terms of the lease. The respondent failed to pay rental as required, resulting in arrears and valid termination of the lease. The alleged waiver of arrear rental was conditional upon the respondent vacating the property by a stipulated date, which she failed to do; thus, the waiver did not take effect. The court held th…
Source excerpt
Delport v Gugushe and Others (15733/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 486 (5 August 2021)
An eviction application was not decided on affidavit because of material disputes about a property sale, alleged loan arrangement, and possible fraud. The court referred the matter to trial.
115 Electrical Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (86870/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 146 (16 March 2021)
The court found that the applicants failed to join the Joburg Market, a necessary party with a direct and substantial interest in the outcome, rendering the application fatally defective. Furthermore, there were bona fide disputes of fact regarding the accuracy and conclusions of the Nexus report that could not be resolved on affidavit and would require oral evidence. The applicants were aware or ought to have foreseen these disputes before launching the application. The court exercised its discretion to allow the amendment of the notice of motion but ordered the applicants to pay the costs o…
Source excerpt
Trans Kalahari Group (Pty) Limited and Another v Paramount Trailers (Pty) Limited (44600/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 91 (18 January 2021)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Uniform Rule of Court 6(12)(b). The respondent's version regarding the fleet retention agreement was neither improbable nor far-fetched and must prevail in motion proceedings for final relief. The applicants did not provide a sustainable legal basis for the return of the trucks and trailers, particularly as they were in breach of the arrangement and owed substantial sums to the respondent. The factual disputes could not be resolved in the applicants' favour on the papers, and the application was strategically launc…
Source excerpt
Nekokwane v Road Accident Fund (CCT322/17) [2019] ZACC 11; 2019 (6) BCLR 745 (CC) (26 March 2019)
The Constitutional Court dismissed leave to appeal, holding that the matter was a purely factual dispute and did not raise a justiciable constitutional issue.
Nel v Head, SAPS Criminal Record Centre (51583/2011) [2016] ZAGPPHC 288 (15 March 2016)
The High Court dismissed Dr Richard Nel’s application to delete alleged criminal-record entries, finding a factual dispute and no proven clear right to relief.
Statusfin Financial Services Pty Ltd v Carstens and Another (53742/2015, 53738/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1156 (15 October 2015)
The court found that both respondents raised real and fundamental factual disputes regarding their alleged indebtedness and the validity of the suretyship agreements. Mrs Carstens provided a plausible account that she did not knowingly sign a suretyship agreement and had no intention to bind herself as surety. Mrs van Antwerp denied signing the agreement and provided evidence that the signature was not hers. The applicant failed to rebut these versions with sufficient evidence. The court held that the respondents' defences were bona fide and reasonable, and on the papers, the balance of proba…
Source excerpt
CES Africa (Pty) Ltd v Burger and Another (49803/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 148 (2 April 2014)
The High Court dismissed a company’s motion to recover allegedly diverted funds, finding material factual disputes and accepting the respondents’ version.
Explore more
