South Africa Case Law

Firmpulse Trading CC and Another v Kleynhans and Another (5115/2023)

Firmpulse Trading CC and Another v Kleynhans and Another (5115/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 166 (27 May 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5115/2023

Judge

Opperman J

The court found that the annexure to the particulars of claim, which purported to describe the farm implements sought to be vindicated, was drafted inappropriately, lacked sufficient detail, and was riddled with mistakes. The use of different languages in the pleadings was not fatal, but the vague and generic descriptions rendered it legally impossible for the defendants to respond or for the court to adjudicate the claim. The quantum claimed was unsupported by any indication of how the values were determined. The defects could not be cured at trial, as fair trial principles require both part…

Source excerpt

• Exception Under Rule 23
• Rei Vindicatio
• Pleading Requirements
• Identification Of Property
• Quantum Of Claim

Friedman N.O. and Another v Moolman (821/2017)

Friedman N.O. and Another v Moolman (821/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 5 (22 February 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

821/2017

Judge

E Revelas

The High Court held that the land sale agreement was void for failure to properly identify the property and ordered repayment of the purchase price with interest.

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Condictio Indebiti
• Statutory Enrichment
• Identification Of Property
• Repudiation
• Formal Requirements For Sale

Mnguni v S (A152/2016)

Mnguni v S (A152/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 190 (3 November 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A152/2016

Judges

Daffue, Tsatsi

The Free State High Court dismissed an appeal against a stock theft conviction and five-year sentence, finding the complainant’s identification of cattle reliable.

• Stock Theft
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Identification Of Property
• Correctional Supervision
• Appeal Procedure
• Stock-theft

Eunesh v S (A476/2014)

Eunesh v S (A476/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 95 (23 February 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A476/2014

Judges

Potterill, Vukeya

The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for theft, finding that minor inconsistencies did not undermine the state witnesses and the circumstantial evidence proved guilt.

• Theft
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Identification Of Property
• Criminal-appeal
• Circumstantial-evidence

Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Cape Town Iron & Steel Works (Pty) Ltd (A55/2007)

Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Cape Town Iron & Steel Works (Pty) Ltd (A55/2007) [2011] ZAKZDHC 8; 2011 (2) SA 547 (KZD) (22 February 2011)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A55/2007

Judge

M J D Wallis

The court held that the plaintiff had discharged the onus of showing a genuine and reasonable need for security, given the defendant's failure to rebut allegations of imminent closure and inability to satisfy a judgment. However, the application was fatally defective because the plaintiff failed to identify the property to be arrested, as required by section 5(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The court found that authorising the sheriff to arrest any property of the defendant without specific identification amounted to a fishing expedition and was not contemplated by the Act.…

Source excerpt

• Security Arrest
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Identification Of Property
• Onus Of Proof

Pentabod (Pty) Ltd v Hazelden and Others (10169/04)

Pentabod (Pty) Ltd v Hazelden and Others (10169/04) [2008] ZAWCHC 87 (23 July 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10169/04

Judge

Desai

The court held that clause 20 created a valid option to buy land, the property was sufficiently identifiable, and the applicant had validly exercised the option.

• Option To Purchase
• Identification Of Property
• Rectification Of Contract
• Right Of Pre Emption
• Option-to-purchase
• Right-of-pre-emption

Kriel NO and Another v Le Roux (52/98)

Kriel NO and Another v Le Roux (52/98) [2000] ZASCA 6; [2000] 2 All SA 65 (SCA) (22 March 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

52/98

Judges

Hefer, Smalberger, Vivier, Grosskopf, Melunsky

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contract and annexed sketch plan, together with objective evidence such as municipal plans and existing boundaries, allow the property to be identified with reasonable certainty, as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. The court found that the description, though inelegant, was sufficient and that the boundaries could be determined without recourse to inadmissible evidence. The appeal was upheld, condonation for late filing was granted due to reasonable explanation, and a special costs order was made against the appellants for unnec…

Source excerpt

• Sale Of Land
• Formalities Of Contract
• Identification Of Property
• Condonation
• Costs Orders