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
Body Corporate Salvokop v Ziramba (2022-056746) [2024] ZAGPPHC 63 (30 January 2024)
The High Court discharged a provisional sequestration order, refusing final sequestration on the return date because the nulla bona return was factually incorrect and the debt was relatively small.
Del Arbre Body Corporate and Another v Mabeta and Another (057842/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1262 (3 November 2023)
The court found that the Close Corporation is unable to pay its debts as required by the Close Corporations Act and Companies Act. The respondent did not dispute the debt or its due and payable status, and only made partial payments insufficient to cover arrears. The force majeure defence based on COVID-19 was rejected, as intermittent payments do not constitute absolute impossibility and financial hardship does not excuse statutory obligations. The applicants are legally obliged to collect all levies, and the respondent failed to demonstrate a bona fide and reasonable dispute of indebtedness…
Source excerpt
Body Corporate of Baluwath v Moroka and Others (D4319/2022) [2023] ZAKZDHC 41 (17 July 2023)
The High Court ordered trust funds paid to a body corporate after finding the respondents owed levies and related charges under a settled but unpaid account.
Leloko Hartebeespoortdam Association NPC v R.E.L (37695/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 34 (23 January 2023)
The High Court granted provisional sequestration after finding a liquidated debt above the statutory minimum and a nulla bona return amounting to insolvency.
Eye of Africa Homeowners Association NPC v Mudanalwo and Another (10267/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 557 (12 August 2022)
The court declared vacant land specially executable after a nulla bona return, rejecting the respondent’s levies and encroachment defences.
Matumi Homeowners Association v Mosima and Another (3233/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 56 (25 February 2020)
The court found that the respondents had failed to pay levies, resulting in a valid judgment debt. The Sheriff was unable to recover sufficient disposable property to satisfy the debt, constituting an act of insolvency under section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act. The respondents' arguments regarding sufficient assets were not supported by payment of the debt. The points in limine of lis pendens and res judicata were dismissed as the Magistrate's Court application had been withdrawn and no final judgment existed on the counterclaim. The counter-application for damages was dismissed due to non-joi…
Source excerpt
Niehaus v High Meadow Grove Body Corporate (40667/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 712; 2020 (5) SA 197 (GJ) (13 November 2018)
The court held that the applicant's possession of the apartment included the incorporeal right to use electricity, which is an incident of her occupation. The reduction of electricity supply by the body corporate, regardless of whether it was total or partial, constituted spoliation. The respondent's reliance on contractual terms or scheme rules did not override the applicant's possessory rights, as spoliation relief protects real rights enforceable against the world at large, not merely personal or contractual rights. The court found the matter urgent and determined that the applicant was en…
Source excerpt
Body Corporate of Empire Gardens v Sithole (Nedbank Ltd Intervening) (14219/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 741 (2 November 2015)
The High Court dismissed a body corporate’s provisional sequestration application, finding no reasonable prospect that creditors as a body would benefit.
Body Corporate of Redberry Park v Sikude NO (9874/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 51 (25 June 2015)
The court dismissed a body corporate’s application to sequestrate a deceased estate, finding no proper showing that sequestration would benefit creditors.
Fisher v Body Corporate Misty Bay (2012 (4) SA 215 (GNP)) [2011] ZAGPPHC 234; [2011] ZAGPPHC 56 (12 April 2011)
The court found that the respondent's suspension of the applicant's access tag, which prevented him from entering the complex with his vehicle, amounted to unlawful deprivation of possession and constituted spoliation. The respondent's reliance on its rules and the standard agreement did not justify its conduct, as there was no explicit provision authorizing such action, and even if there were, due process must be followed. The respondent could not take the law into its own hands by restricting access based on levy arrears. The applicant was entitled to restoration of possession and access to…
Source excerpt
Explore more
