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
Admiralty And Maritime [2013] ZAKZDHC 62

CH Offshore Ltd v PDV Marina SA and Others (A113/2013)

CH Offshore Ltd v PDV Marina SA and Others (A113/2013) [2013] ZAKZDHC 62 (5 November 2013)

Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
A113/2013
Judge
Ploos van Amstel

The court held that the possessory rights of PDV Marina SA in the MT Rio Caroni, arising from a bareboat charter-party, are not real rights located within the jurisdiction of the South African court and cannot be arrested as security for the applicant's claim. The rights under the charter-party are contractual and their situs is where the shipowner resides, not where the vessel is physically present. The court found that mere possession does not constitute a real right or an asset in the estate of the charterer, and the arrest of such rights does not serve the legitimate purpose of providing…

Source excerpt

  • Security Arrest
  • Bareboat Charter
  • Possessory Rights
  • Jurisdiction
  • Hire Purchase
  • Action In Rem
Read case analysis
Delict [2009] ZAWCHC 90

Raqa v Hofman (A38/2009)

Raqa v Hofman (A38/2009) [2009] ZAWCHC 90; 2010 (1) SA 302 (WCC) (29 May 2009)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
A38/2009
Judges
Saldanha, Binns-Ward

The court held that the respondent did not have locus standi to claim damages under the Aquilian action because he was neither the owner nor the possessor of the vehicle at the time of the damage, nor did he bear the risk of damage. The respondent's interest was contingent and purely financial, arising from his role as guarantor for the payment under the instalment sale agreement, but not as a risk-bearing possessor. The evidence showed that Mr Ngceza, who had possession and bore the risk, was the proper party to claim for the damage. The magistrate erred in treating the respondent as a hire-…

Source excerpt

  • Aquilian Action
  • Locus Standi
  • Hire Purchase
  • Risk Bearing
  • Possession
  • Damages For Property
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [1998] ZASCA 21

Info Plus v Scheelke and Another (381/96)

Info Plus v Scheelke and Another (381/96) [1998] ZASCA 21; 1998 (3) SA 184 (SCA); [1998] 2 All SA 509 (A) (25 March 1998)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
381/96
Judges
Van Heerden, Hefer, Eksteen, Nienaber, Howie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conditional delivery of the Mercedes Benz 230 TE under the hire-purchase agreement sufficed for transfer of ownership upon fulfilment of the condition, namely payment of the outstanding balance. It was not necessary for the purchaser to be in possession of the vehicle at the time the condition was fulfilled. The court rejected the notion that a second act of delivery or a further real agreement was required at the material time. The payment made by the second respondent to Wesbank extinguished the appellant's indebtedness and fulfilled the condition,…

Source excerpt

  • Transfer Of Ownership
  • Hire Purchase
  • Estoppel
  • Delivery Of Corporeal Movable Property
Read case analysis
Land And Property [1984] ZASCA 151

Standard Bank Nasionale Industriele Kredietkorporasie Bpk. v Pretorius (137/84)

Standard Bank Nasionale Industriele Kredietkorporasie Bpk. v Pretorius (137/84) [1984] ZASCA 151 (29 November 1984)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
137/84
Judges
Rabie, Joubert, Hefer, Wessels, Galgut

The court found that Stannic failed to prove it acquired ownership of the Mercedes Benz LS 1924/36 either through constitutum possessorium or attornment. The evidence did not establish that Vaaldor intended to hold the vehicle for New Vaal Motors as owner, nor was there a tripartite agreement for attornment. The hire purchase agreement and related documents indicated that Stannic considered itself owner, but did not demonstrate a valid transfer of ownership from Vaaldor or New Vaal Motors to Stannic. Given the parties' agreement and the factual matrix, the court held that Pretorius, who purch…

Source excerpt

  • Ownership Transfer
  • Constitutum Possessorium
  • Attornment
  • Hire Purchase
  • Delivery Of Goods
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.