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
De Kock v Olivier (21144/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 351 (6 November 2024)
The High Court partly allowed an amendment application in a building-contract dispute, but refused the core changes for lack of a factual basis.
Banda and Another v Xenforce Proprietary Limited (008220/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1195 (23 October 2023)
The High Court dismissed an exception to amended particulars of claim, finding the pleadings disclosed a cause of action and the oral agreements were independent.
National Home Builders Registration Council v Makubela and Another (2020/21621) [2020] ZAGPJHC 315 (9 September 2020)
The High Court interdicted further building work pending compliance with the NHBRC enrolment requirements under section 14 of the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act.
National Home Builders' Registration Council & Another v Xantha Properties 18 (Pty) Ltd (780/2018, 784/2018) [2019] ZASCA 96; 2019 (5) SA 424 (SCA) (21 June 2019)
Section 14(1) of the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act 95 of 1998 applies to homes constructed for the purpose of being let or rented out. The definition of 'business of a home builder' was amended to include leasing and renting, and the Act's underlying purpose is to ensure all homes meet prescribed standards, regardless of whether they are sold or let. The respondent's argument that tenants are not housing consumers and that enrolment is irrational is rejected. The Act requires registration and enrolment for all homes, and inspectors must be able to identify and inspect them. There…
Source excerpt
National Home Builders Registration Council v Adendorf and Others (406/2018) [2019] ZASCA 20; 2019 (5) SA 317 (SCA) (26 March 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act is consumer-protection legislation intended to apply broadly to all entities engaged in home building, including trusts. Although the Act does not define 'person', its provisions, particularly sections 9 and 21, explicitly reference trusts and trustees, indicating legislative intent to include trusts within its ambit. The purpose of the Act is to protect housing consumers and ensure minimum standards in the home building industry. Excluding trusts would undermine these objectives and result in arbitrary and un…
Source excerpt
Vos v Fynbosland 304 CC (2864/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 20 (27 February 2017)
The court found that the Savage Order dated 31 May 2016 was clear and unambiguous in binding only the first respondent to payment and performance. There was no basis to read in joint and several liability for the second respondent, nor to amend the order retrospectively. The nature of the order, being for payment of money (ad pecuniam solvendam), rendered it unenforceable by way of contempt proceedings. The first respondent was no longer before the court due to liquidation, and no grounds existed to hold the second respondent personally liable. Accordingly, the application for contempt was di…
Source excerpt
Flemix and Another v Russel; In re: Russel v Flemix and Others (44521/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 182 (6 July 2016)
The High Court dismissed an exception based on alleged non-joinder or misjoinder, holding the point did not appear ex facie the pleadings and was raised on extraneous facts.
Woodglaze Trading (Proprietary) Limited v Matshekga N.O. and Another (3164/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 17 (2 March 2015)
The High Court upheld NHBRC fines for 96 un-enrolled homes, rejecting review grounds based on jurisdiction, consolidation of counts, and alleged harshness.
Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbard and Another (CCT 99/13) [2014] ZACC 16; 2014 (4) SA 474 (CC); 2014 (8) BCLR 869 (CC) (5 June 2014)
The Constitutional Court held that an unregistered home builder could not enforce payment or have the arbitration award made a court order.
Billion Group (Pty) Ltd v Gobile (EL759/08, ECD 3059/08) [2013] ZAECELLC 9 (2 October 2013)
The court found that the building agreement was valid and binding, as the parties' common intention was to build in accordance with the plan marked 'Option 5 [?????? m²]', not 'Plan 8' as mistakenly referenced. The statutory requirements of section 13(1) of the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act were substantively complied with, as the approved municipal plan existed and specifications were attached or available. Section 13(3) expressly provides that failure to comply with subsections (a) and (c) does not render the agreement invalid. The reference to 150 m² in the agreement was interp…
Source excerpt
Explore more
