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
De Wit and Others v De Wit and Others (8370/23) [2024] ZAWCHC 101 (10 April 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to terminate a family trust or remove trustees, finding the applicants had not met the requirements of the Trust Property Control Act.
Rheinland Filling Station (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mphosi and Others (24/000484) [2024] ZAGPJHC 44 (25 January 2024)
The court found that the applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the fuel service stations and convenience stores at the relevant sites, as evidenced by bank statements, payroll records, and the respondents' own admissions regarding the arrangement for revenue collection. The respondents' actions in changing cash handling procedures, replacing speed-point machines, and diverting revenue constituted unlawful dispossession. The merits of ownership or entitlement to revenue are irrelevant at this stage; the focus is on possession and the prohibition of self-help. The applicatio…
Source excerpt
Barbaglia N.O and Others v Noble Land (Pty) Ltd and Others (A5041/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 85 (24 June 2021)
The court found that Noble Land is solvent, with assets far exceeding liabilities, and that its monthly expenses are met. However, the relationship between the two main shareholders/directors, Michael and Gregory Barbaglia, has irretrievably broken down, resulting in a deadlock that prevents the company from functioning as intended. The court held that the failure to plead under the correct Companies Act was not fatal, as the just and equitable ground for winding-up is available under both the 1973 and 2008 Acts, and the facts and contentions were sufficiently established. The court exercised…
Source excerpt
Ambanc (Pty) Limited t/a Hiref v Sukha and Others (2017/8310) [2017] ZAGPJHC 76 (16 March 2017)
The court dismissed urgent competing applications arising from a family company dispute, holding Ambanc lacked authority to sue and that the counter-application could not be decided on the papers.
Botha v Van Zyl and Another (1763/2008) [2009] ZANCHC 19 (29 May 2009)
The court found that the applicant had proven on a balance of probabilities that it was just and equitable for the close corporation to be placed under provisional liquidation. The breakdown in the relationship between the applicant and the first respondent, rooted in severe family conflict and lack of mutual trust, made future cooperation impossible. The applicant had made reasonable efforts to negotiate an exit, but the first respondent refused to engage or make counter-offers. The absence of a cooperation agreement and the inability to resolve the dispute through negotiation created a dead…
Source excerpt
Explore more
