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
Peter v Nkonde and Others (A73/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 122 (27 May 2022)
The court dismissed an eviction appeal after finding that Housing Act section 10A barred the alienation of the subsidised property and left the appellant without standing.
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.
Abdul v Williams and Others (CA227/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 103 (29 October 2019)
The court held that the sale and transfer of the state-subsidised property within the eight-year restriction period, without the written consent of the relevant Provincial Housing Department, was strictly prohibited by section 10A of the Housing Act. Both the initial sale agreement and the subsequent lease agreement between the appellant and the first and second respondents were concluded in contravention of the statutory restriction and were therefore null and void. The appellant did not acquire any rights in the property, either as purchaser or tenant. The subsequent sale and transfer to th…
Source excerpt
Tapala and Another v Tlebetla and Others (89400/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 46 (22 February 2019)
The High Court set aside the sale and registration of state-subsidised property to the first respondent for non-compliance with section 10A(1) of the Housing Act.
Jokozela v Ngece and Another (CA137/2014) [2017] ZAECGHC 54 (13 April 2017)
The magistrate erred by dismissing both the point in limine and the eviction application without affording the parties procedural fairness. The appellant introduced a new claim for declaratory relief regarding the legality of the sale at the last minute, prejudicing the first respondent, who was denied an opportunity to respond. The failure to join the provincial housing department, a party with a direct interest due to the restrictive clause, further compromised the proceedings. The court held that the first respondent's objection to the point in limine should have been upheld, the appellant…
Source excerpt
Explore more
