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
Oppermansgronde Communal Property Association v Smith and Others (1489/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 103 (10 April 2024)
The High Court held that an expired lease and continued occupation without consent made the first respondent an unlawful occupier, and ordered eviction.
Engen Petroleum Limited v Rissik Street One Stop CC and Another (209/2020) [2021] ZASCA 63 (26 May 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in granting a stay of eviction proceedings and an interdict pending arbitration under s 12B of the Petroleum Products Act. The lease agreement between Engen and the respondents expired by effluxion of time, and the dispute referred to arbitration did not include the termination or extension of the lease. The arbitrator's powers under s 12B are limited to correcting unfair or unreasonable contractual practices and do not extend to reinstating expired leases or granting occupation rights pending sale. The respondents' right to sell the…
Source excerpt
Kwaliddolo Communal Property Association v Mahlangu and Others (LCC287/17) [2020] ZALCC 32 (15 February 2020)
The Land Claims Court rescinded an ex parte interim order, granted condonation for late filing, and held the applicant had shown a bona fide defence.
Bright Idea Projects 66 (Pty) Ltd t/a All Fuels v Crompton Street Motors CC t/a Wallers Garage Service Station (1916/2018P) [2019] ZAKZPHC 39 (6 June 2019)
The High Court ordered ejectment after a fuel station lease and franchise expired, rejecting a stay for arbitration and finding no enforceable renewal obligation.
N N Metals v Transnet Ltd (51408/2011) [2015] ZAGPPHC 872 (21 August 2015)
The High Court dismissed Transnet’s application for leave to appeal, holding there was no reasonable prospect of success on the exceptions and lien issues.
Suryakiran Properties (Pty) Ltd v Mahomed and Another (6577/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 880 (11 November 2014)
High Court eviction case: an expired lease, no proven renewal, and compliance with PIE led to an eviction order with a set vacate date.
Property & Marketing (Pty) Ltd v Swaanswyk Horse Owners & Riders Association (8562/2007) [2011] ZAWCHC 338 (16 August 2011)
The High Court held that the respondent had no right to remain after its lease expired and that no binding equestrian-use condition had been proved.
Kowie Quarry CC v Ndlambe Municipality (1897/08) [2008] ZAECHC 183 (29 September 2008)
The applicant's mining rights and entitlement to access the property were subject to the terms and duration of both the lease agreement and the mining licence, both of which expired on 30 September 2008. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act provides for the conversion of old order mining rights, but only within the period and conditions originally granted. The applicant's interpretation, which would allow continued mining regardless of the lease expiry, would irrationally override the property rights of the Municipality and impose a lease beyond its express terms, contrary to t…
Source excerpt
Van Niekerk NO and Anders v South Cape College (316/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 128 (28 January 2008)
The respondent's occupation of the premises is unlawful as the lease expired and no valid renewal option was exercised. The applicants have entered into a new lease with Africa Skills Village, which will continue the educational function for disadvantaged students. While the interests of the students are important and protected under the Constitution, the respondent's continued occupation unjustifiably infringes on the applicants' and new lessee's rights. The court finds no basis to delay eviction for further investigation by Eskom, as the trust deed amendment was properly executed and Eskom…
Source excerpt
Dries v Venter NO and Others (24094/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 37; 2005 (6) SA 67 (T) (1 April 2005)
The court found that the applicant was obliged to comply with section 4 of PIE before seeking eviction, as the property included a house used for dwelling by the first respondent and potentially other vulnerable persons. The court rejected the applicant's argument that PIE did not apply simply because the respondents acted as trustees of a trust, noting that the actual occupation and use of the property for residential purposes brought the matter within the ambit of PIE. The absence of clear evidence regarding the presence of farm workers did not absolve the applicant from the statutory notic…
Source excerpt
Explore more
