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
Padayachee v Van Den Heever N.O. and Others [2023] ZAGPJHC 174 (13 February 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to compel transfer and registration of a motor vehicle bought from a liquidated seller, finding no lack of alternative remedy.
Du Plessis v Du Plessis and Another (2990/10) [2011] ZAECPEHC 51 (29 October 2011)
The High Court upheld a spoliation claim over drilling equipment, finding the applicant had possessed the machinery and was unlawfully deprived of it.
Du Plessis v Du Plessis and Another (2990/10) [2010] ZAECPEHC 77 (29 October 2010)
The court granted a spoliation order restoring drilling equipment to the applicant and dismissed the respondents’ counter-application with costs.
Dart Motors (Pty) Ltd v Jannecke (A611/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 192 (20 August 2010)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a hire-purchase vehicle dispute, finding no valid cancellation or voluntary surrender where the signed form was not properly explained.
Calibain BK h/a Swedo Tech Motor Centre v ABSA Bank Bpk (2116/2007) [2009] ZAFSHC 106 (22 October 2009)
High Court decision holding that a cessionary of hire-purchase rights did not assume the seller’s obligations and made no actionable misrepresentation.
Bezuidenhout v Pretoria Bank Bpk. (490/95) [1997] ZASCA 53 (27 May 1997)
The appeal concerned whether a bank was liable for loss after vehicles financed under hire-purchase agreements were not insured. The court held the appellant bore the insurance duty.
Standard Kredietkorporasie Bpk. v Jot Motors (Edms) Bpk. (118/84) [1985] ZASCA 96; [1986] 1 All SA 329 (A) (25 September 1985)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent, who repaired the vehicle at the request of Marogane, was in lawful possession and entitled to a right of retention until compensated for the repair costs. The respondent's knowledge of the appellant's ownership and the terms of the hire purchase agreement did not amount to mala fides, nor did it constitute acting against express instructions. Clause 3(a) of the agreement required the buyer to keep the vehicle free from liens, but did not prohibit necessary repairs or the possibility of a lien arising from unpaid repair costs. The indemnity…
Source excerpt
Explore more
