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
Knoetze v Botes N.O (1802/2020) [2025] ZAECMKHC 37 (15 April 2025)
The court held the developer liable for damages after finding it fraudulently failed to disclose a latent roof-truss defect that caused a fire.
Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and Others v Capm Tau Mine (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/067518) [2024] ZAGPJHC 422 (2 May 2024)
High Court refused to set aside subpoenas duces tecum issued in arbitration, holding the requested documents were relevant and not abusive.
Stemmet and Another v Mokhethi and Another (681/2022) [2023] ZASCA 127 (4 October 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents were in possession of sufficient facts to institute action against the appellants as early as June 2014. The respondents had observed structural cracks, patchwork indicating concealment, and deterioration of the property, which was sufficient to form a reasonable belief that the appellants had fraudulently concealed latent defects. The court found that knowledge of the precise cause of the defects was not required for prescription to commence. The majority of the full court erred in concluding that prescription only began when the responde…
Source excerpt
Le Roux v Zietsman and Another (330/202) [2023] ZASCA 102 (15 June 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the seller fraudulently failed to disclose latent roof defects in a guesthouse sale, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Maloka v Vermeulen and Another (2017/4418) [2023] ZAGPPHC 13 (5 January 2023)
The High Court held that the sellers knew of latent damp defects, fraudulently failed to disclose them, and could not rely on voetstoots.
QLC Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Quantum Leap Consulting v Western Cape Government : Department of the Premier (19636/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 48 (1 April 2022)
The High Court set aside the termination of three government IT contracts, holding that the cited clauses and regulations did not permit cancellation for prior alleged misconduct.
Le Roux v Zeitsman and Another (HCA10/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 79 (2 November 2021)
High Court appeal over a seller’s nondisclosure of latent roof defects in a property sale; appeal dismissed and the damages award upheld.
Mkhize v Jonkers and Others (1387/2019) [2020] ZANCHC 89 (4 December 2020)
The court held that a vacating owner did not trigger section 10A(3) of the Housing Act and refused to set aside the second sale and transfer of the subsidised house.
Maghilda Investments (Pty) Limited and Others v Centrus (Pty) Ltd and Others (76921/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 282 (15 May 2019)
High Court exception judgment on alleged fraudulent or negligent non-disclosure, SALA validity, and delictual damages. Some exceptions upheld; leave to amend granted.
Ellis and Another v Cilliers N.O and Others (16936/11) [2015] ZAWCHC 145; 2016 (1) SA 293 (WCC) (9 October 2015)
The court found that the unlevel floors and remedial works constituted latent defects, as they were not visible or discoverable upon inspection and substantially impaired the ordinary use of the property. The sellers were aware of these defects and failed to disclose them, thereby acting fraudulently and defeating the protection of the voetstoots clause. The court adopted a liberal approach to the definition of latent defects, holding that any unusual feature hindering renovation or ordinary use must be disclosed. The sellers' failure to inform the buyers placed the parties on unequal terms a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
