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
K.R.R and Another v K.R and Others (2023-130586) [2024] ZAGPPHC 891 (5 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for declarations about a customary marriage and a later marriage, holding that lis alibi pendens and factual disputes barred relief.
Eco Trades (Pty) Ltd v Trustees for the Time Being of the DA Pauw Trust and Others (453/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 57 (29 February 2024)
The High Court found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed a motion for vindicatory relief over a solar system because key contractual and factual disputes could not be resolved on the papers.
Pritchard v Mvubu and Others (6004/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 50 (16 February 2024)
The court found that the applicant's acceptance of the first respondent's counter-offer was conditional, specifically requiring the purchase price to be held in trust pending transfer of the liquor license. This constituted a counter-offer and not an unconditional acceptance, meaning no binding agreement was concluded. The respondent's denial of consensus on essential terms, including payment of transfer costs, was supported by the evidence. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the court held that the respondent's version was not so far-fetched or untenable as to be rejected on the papers. A mate…
Source excerpt
M.M.M v Mhlekwa and Others (2029/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 384 (9 October 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application for declaratory relief about life-partnership inheritance rights after finding joinder defects, lack of a curator for a minor, and material factual disputes.
Nobilatus Projects 23 (Pty) Limited v Improfin (Pty) Limited (20272/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 598 (30 May 2023)
The High Court dismissed a liquidation application because the debt was disputed on bona fide grounds and the issues could not be decided on affidavit.
Bakgoma Ba Mothapo Council v Mothapo and Others (8368/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 59 (3 November 2022)
The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi as it is not a legitimate structure within the Mothapo royal family and its deponent is not of royal blood. The applicant's concession to the respondents' technical objections was fatal to its case. The court held that only the royal family has the authority to identify the next senior traditional leader under the Limpopo Traditional Leadership and Institution Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant should have foreseen a material dispute of fact and that motion proceedings were inappropriate. On both grounds—lack of sta…
Source excerpt
Westhills 379 Development (Pty) Limited v Bantu Foods (Pty) Ltd (32500/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 422 (28 May 2021)
The High Court dismissed a strike-out application in a lease eviction dispute and referred the matter to trial because genuine factual disputes could not be resolved on affidavit.
Namacara Investments CC v Smiley Kids and Another (4621/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 35 (27 February 2020)
The High Court dismissed an application to confirm cancellation of a lease and eject the respondents, finding a material dispute of fact and no proven authority to sue.
Barnard N.O and Another v Mathura and Another (39335/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 46 (31 January 2020)
The applicants, acting as liquidators, established a liquidated claim against the respondents for void payments made after the liquidation of JVSS Holdings (Pty) Ltd, amounting to R188,730.00. The respondents failed to provide substantive evidence rebutting the claim or demonstrating factual solvency, relying instead on unsubstantiated assertions. The respondents' correspondence acknowledged the debt and their inability to pay, satisfying the requirements for an act of insolvency under section 8(g) of the Insolvency Act. The applicants demonstrated that sequestration may benefit creditors, as…
Source excerpt
Onverdient (Pty) Ltd and Another v Triple Options Trading 641 CC and Another (5994/2018) [2019] ZALMPPHC 67 (27 November 2019)
The court found that there were material disputes of fact regarding the existence and terms of the alleged lease agreement and the right to evict the first respondent. The applicants failed to provide sufficient details of the oral lease agreement, and the respondents substantiated their position with a settlement agreement. The spoliation claim was dismissed due to unreasonable delay and lack of special circumstances. The interdict regarding the peach harvest was moot as the relevant season had ended and no issue of public importance was raised. The applicants, aware of the disputes of fact…
Source excerpt
Explore more
