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
Badenhorst v Diale Mogashoa Incorporated Attorneys and Others (2022-017825) [2025] ZAGPPHC 518 (23 May 2025)
The High Court refused summary judgment in a legal-fees dispute, holding that the defendants disclosed a bona fide defence based on a payment clause linked to RAF receipt.
Notshe Attorneys v State Attorney, Mthatha and Others (Leave to Appeal) (1071/2022) [2025] ZAECMHC 64 (20 February 2025)
The High Court granted leave to appeal to the State Attorney and Minister of Justice, dismissed the Minister of Police’s leave application, and refused a section 18(3) execution request.
Highpoint Manufacturing (Pty) Limited v Emerson Assets Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (3963/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 28 (6 February 2023)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not issuing the third-party notice before the close of pleadings. The applicant was aware of the third respondent's involvement and the alleged defects well before the relevant dates, as evidenced by correspondence and meetings. The explanation that knowledge of the factory fault only arose after discovery was found to be contradictory and false. Furthermore, the warranty relied upon by the applicant had expired, and any claim based on it was time-barred. On a conspectus of all the evidence and facts, the appl…
Source excerpt
Zurich Insurance Company South Africa Ltd v Gauteng Provincial Government (734/2021) [2022] ZASCA 127; [2023] 1 All SA 368 (SCA); 2023 (1) SA 447 (SCA) (28 September 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription did not begin to run until the province acquired actual knowledge of the damage in 2014, following expert investigation, and thus the claim was not prescribed when summons was served in 2015. The Court found, based on expert evidence, that the rock mass surrounding the tunnel void is an essential component of the tunnel and forms part of the property insured under the policy. The Court further held that the High Court's order was clear, enforceable, and consistent with established practice, properly separating liability from quantum for later…
Source excerpt
Eksteen v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (4439/2007) [2009] ZAFSHC 111 (30 October 2009)
The plaintiff gave proper notice to the defendant and called upon it to intervene regarding the eviction. He was prohibited by law from possessing the vehicle due to tampered engine and chassis numbers, as per Section 68(6) of the National Road Traffic Act. The plaintiff was not obliged to apply for a SAPVIN number, as lawful entitlement to possession was not established. The plaintiff put up a sufficient virilis defensio and did everything reasonably possible to allow the defendant to protect his possession. The defendant failed to act and is therefore liable to indemnify the plaintiff for t…
Source excerpt
Pook v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality and Another (3697/06) [2008] ZAECHC 101 (26 June 2008)
The High Court held the municipality liable for a plaintiff’s fall on a defective pavement and ordered compensation, with quantum and indemnification left for later.
NBS Bank Ltd v Cape Produce Company Pty Ltd and Others (281/99) [2001] ZASCA 107; [2002] 2 All SA 262 (A); 2002 (1) SA 396 (SCA) (28 September 2001)
The court held that NBS Bank was bound by its branch manager’s apparent authority to issue deposit undertakings and repay investors, but Trevor Bradley was liable to indemnify the bank.
Explore more
