South Africa Case Law

Alana v Monoline Investments 8 Trust (2020/37977)

Alana v Monoline Investments 8 Trust (2020/37977) [2025] ZAGPJHC 47 (23 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/37977

Judge

Dlamini

The court held that it does not have the power to make a settlement agreement an order of court where the agreement was concluded prior to the commencement of litigation and does not relate to a pending lis between the parties. The applicant's additional claim for a money order was dismissed as it was not sought in the notice of motion or founding affidavit, and no supporting evidence was adduced. The application was accordingly dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Housing Development Schemes For Retired Persons Act
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Life Rights Agreement

Szabo N.O v Jarkie-Trust Administrators (Pty) Ltd (Reasons) (2023/038089)

Szabo N.O v Jarkie-Trust Administrators (Pty) Ltd (Reasons) (2023/038089) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1198 (21 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/038089

Judge

Cajee

Court granted repayment of a retirement-village loan and mora interest, holding the founding affidavit was sufficient despite fuller detail appearing in reply.

• Housing Development Schemes For Retired Persons Act
• Lifelong Occupational Right
• Repayment Of Loan
• Mora Interest
• Founding Affidavit Requirements
• Civil-procedure

Herold Gie and Broadhead Inc v Harris N O and Others (602/2023)

Herold Gie and Broadhead Inc v Harris N O and Others (602/2023) [2024] ZASCA 125; [2024] 4 All SA 333 (SCA); 2025 (2) SA 144 (SCA) (13 September 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

602/2023

Judges

Dambuza, Nicholls, Mabindla-Boqwana, Tolmay, Mbhele

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 6(4) of the HDSA did not support a refund claim where the practitioner had already paid the developer before insolvency.

• Housing Development Schemes For Retired Persons Act
• Statutory Interpretation
• Trust Account Liability
• Refund Of Purchase Price
• Separation Of Issues
• Housing-development-schemes-for-retired-persons-act

Eden Crescent Share Block Ltd v Olive Marketing CC and Others (1075/2020)

Eden Crescent Share Block Ltd v Olive Marketing CC and Others (1075/2020) [2022] ZASCA 177; 2023 (3) SA 476 (SCA) (9 December 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1075/2020

Judges

Dambuza ADP, Molemela JA, Plasket JA, Basson AJJA, Siwendu AJJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a parking servitude over Eden’s property was valid as a general servitude and that statutory approval requirements did not apply.

• Servitude Validity
• Vagueness In Servitude
• Share Blocks Control Act
• Housing Development Schemes For Retired Persons Act
• Alienation Of Property
• Registration Of Servitude

Nedbank Limited v Steyn NO and Others (28991/2018)

Nedbank Limited v Steyn NO and Others (28991/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 77 (21 February 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28991/2018

Judge

G.Y. Benson

The court found that the trustees and Trusts have contravened the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Act by failing to obtain the required endorsements for the sale and onward disposal of life rights in retirement villages. The agreements between the Trusts and life right holders prohibit the transfer or cession of rights by the holders, and the Trusts remain the sole marketers and owners of the developments. The relief granted serves to protect future purchasers and the rights of Nedbank as mortgagee. The court held that the threshold for granting leave to appeal under section 1…

Source excerpt

• Housing Development Schemes For Retired Persons Act
• Leave To Appeal Threshold
• Section 18 Application
• Non Joinder
• Statutory Illegality

Voges v Business Venture Investments No 1034 (Pty) Ltd (12352/2017)

Voges v Business Venture Investments No 1034 (Pty) Ltd (12352/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 72 (4 June 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12352/2017

Judge

Gamble

High Court exception dismissed: an elderly plaintiff retained standing to claim repayment of her life-right purchase price after cancelling a retirement village contract.

• Housing Development Schemes For Retired Persons Act
• Stipulatio Alteri
• Locus Standi
• Contract Interpretation
• Adjectus Solutionis Causa
• Locus-standi

Du Rand NO v Faerie Glen Renaissance Scheme (302/08)

Du Rand NO v Faerie Glen Renaissance Scheme (302/08) [2009] ZASCA 122; [2010] 1 All SA 383 (SCA) (28 September 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

302/08

Judges

Streicher, Lewis, Snyders, Leach, Bosielo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the retirement-housing legislation already applied to the scheme, so the rule amendments did not harm the appellants’ proprietary rights.

• Sectional Titles Act
• Housing Development Schemes For Retired Persons Act
• Management Rules Amendment
• Proprietary Rights
• Unanimous Resolution
• Retirement Village Regulation

Vorster NO v Settlers Park Association (866/2009)

Vorster NO v Settlers Park Association (866/2009) [2009] ZAECGHC 45 (2 July 2009)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

866/2009

Judge

Plasket

The High Court granted summary judgment for an estate seeking a refund under a retirement village life-right contract, rejecting an alleged oral variation.

• Housing Development Schemes For Retired Persons Act
• Summary Judgment
• Contract Variation
• Life Rights
• Written Agreement Requirement
• Summary-judgment

Eden Village (Meadowbrook) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Edwards and Another (164/93)

Eden Village (Meadowbrook) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Edwards and Another (164/93) [1995] ZASCA 47; 1995 (4) SA 31 (AD); (11 May 1995)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

164/93

Judges

J P G Eksteen, Joubert, Hoexter, Nestadt, F H Grosskopf

The Court held that Eden Village was not operated as a sectional title or share block scheme at the relevant time, as no sectional title register had been opened and no body corporate existed. Therefore, Regulations 7 to 14 of GN 1351 applied to the scheme. The Minister had the authority under section 11 of the Act to promulgate the regulations, which were not ultra vires. The change in ministerial title did not affect the validity of the regulations, as the administration of the Act remained within the relevant department. The issue of non-joinder was resolved by notifying all residents and…

Source excerpt

• Housing Development Schemes For Retired Persons Act
• Sectional Titles Act
• Management Association Rights
• Ultra Vires Regulations
• Non Joinder
• Ministerial Powers