Esheria South Africa Case Law
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
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2021] ZAGPJHC 461

Educated Risk Investments 54 (Pty) Ltd v The Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others (18358/2020)

Educated Risk Investments 54 (Pty) Ltd v The Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others (18358/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 461 (27 September 2021)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
18358/2020
Judge
Adams

The court held that section 408 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 is clear: once the Master confirms the liquidation and distribution account and distribution commences, the account has the effect of a final judgment and cannot be reopened. Payments to Nedbank and Imperial had already been made, and the applicant's challenge to their shareholding was precluded by the settlement agreement made an order of court in November 2018. The applicant failed to demonstrate any substantial injustice as required by section 157 of the Insolvency Act. The application for reopening the account, as well as the…

Source excerpt

  • Liquidation And Distribution Account
  • Final Judgment Effect
  • Reopening Of Account
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Punitive Costs
  • Share Acquisition Regulation
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2015] ZACC 38

Mathale v Linda and Another (CCT22/15)

Mathale v Linda and Another (CCT22/15) [2015] ZACC 38; 2016 (2) BCLR 226 (CC); 2016 (2) SA 461 (CC) (2 December 2015)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT22/15
Judges
Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Matojane, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Wallis, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that execution orders granted under section 78 of the Magistrates' Court Act are appealable if they have the effect of a final judgment, particularly where they result in irreparable harm such as homelessness. The High Court erred by applying the wrong standard, focusing on the interests of justice rather than whether the order was final in effect. The Magistrates' Court failed to properly consider the applicant's prospects of success on appeal, the irreparable harm of eviction, and the questionable standing of the first respondent to seek eviction. The balance o…

Source excerpt

  • Right To Housing
  • Eviction
  • Magistrates Court Act Section 78
  • Final Judgment Effect
  • Municipal Housing Obligations
  • Appealability Of Execution Orders
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2000] ZASCA 180

Van Der Merwe v Bonaero Park (Edms) Bpk (106/98)

Van Der Merwe v Bonaero Park (Edms) Bpk (106/98) [2000] ZASCA 180 (31 May 2000)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
106/98
Judges
Grosskopf, Schutz, ARR, Mthiyane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's refusal to provide security de restitutendo upon request was contrary to Rule 8(9) and 8(10), as payment and provision of security must occur simultaneously. The appellant's notice was sufficient to trigger the obligation to provide security, and the respondent's failure constituted a default under Rule 8(10), entitling the appellant to proceed to the principal case. The court further found that the late filing of the notice to proceed could be condoned under Rule 27, as good reasons for condonation were present in the record. The previou…

Source excerpt

  • Provisional Sentence
  • Security De Restituendo
  • Rule 8 Application
  • Condonation
  • Late Filing
  • Final Judgment Effect
Read case analysis
Banking And Finance [1984] ZASCA 90

Kilroe-Daley v Barclays National Bank Ltd (385/82)

Kilroe-Daley v Barclays National Bank Ltd (385/82) [1984] ZASCA 90; [1984] 2 All SA 551 (A) ; 1984 (4) SA 609 (A) (4 September 1984)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
385/82
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Nicholas, Galgut, Howard

The court held that the appellant's liability as surety and co-principal debtor was accessory to the principal debt owed by Dodo Shipping Company. The debt became due on 31 July 1974, and prescription commenced from that date. The Bank filed its claim against Dodo in liquidation, which delayed prescription under section 13(1)(g) and (i) of the Prescription Act until one year after the confirmation of the liquidation account on 9 August 1978. The summons was served on the appellant after this period, on 31 March 1980, and thus the claim had prescribed. The court rejected the Bank's argument th…

Source excerpt

  • Suretyship
  • Prescription Act
  • Mortgage Bond
  • Liquidation
  • Final Judgment Effect
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.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.