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
RB v ES (2321/2016) [2025] ZANCHC 68 (1 August 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success or other compelling reason to hear the appeal.
Maree and Another v Kayinja and Others (2019/28191) [2025] ZAGPJHC 751 (31 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed a rescission application and declared that a voluntary surrender order had sequestrated the Kayiwas’ joint estate.
N.S v R.S (D410/2020) [2025] ZAKZDHC 43 (18 July 2025)
The High Court terminated joint ownership of a marital home, ordered a private auction at a R5 million reserve, and set rules for transfer and accrual division.
Mogudi v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (31834/1993) [2025] ZAGPJHC 494 (22 May 2025)
The High Court rescinded a 1994 default judgment and execution sale over a Soweto property, finding the bank failed to join a co-owning spouse and the bond transaction was invalid.
Wesbank, A Division of Firstrand Bank Limited v Bohlale Mothipa Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (120260/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 501 (15 May 2025)
The court found that the National Credit Act does not apply to the agreement in question because the first respondent is a juristic person with turnover exceeding the statutory threshold, rendering the agreement a 'large agreement.' The respondents' denial of this fact was found to be bold and sketchy, lacking particularity. The court held that the applicant was not required to attach a certificate of registration as a credit provider. The respondents failed to show compliance with the agreement, entitling the applicant to cancel the contract and claim return of the vehicle. The dilatory defe…
Source excerpt
D.C.M v C.C.M (1235/22) [2025] ZASCA 55; [2025] 3 All SA 291 (SCA) (9 May 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that where parties declare the commencement value of their estates in an antenuptial contract, such declaration is contractually binding and serves as conclusive proof of the commencement value for accrual calculations. Section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act applies only where no value is declared, in which case the contract or statement serves as prima facie proof. The applicant did not plead any recognised common law grounds to attack the contract. The CPI-adjusted commencement value of the respondent's estate was R129 million, while the value at disso…
Source excerpt
Malunga and Another v Sanqela (A93/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 133; [2025] 3 All SA 173 (WCC) (24 March 2025)
The court held that the agreement constituted an alienation of shares as envisaged by section 15(2)(c) of the Matrimonial Property Act, as the option to purchase shares had been exercised and the agreement was binding. The respondent, Ms Sanqela, or her attorney, failed to make reasonable enquiries regarding the marital regime and spousal consent, as required by section 15(9)(a). The failure to discharge this duty meant that the protection of deemed consent was not available. The agreement was not entered into in the ordinary course of business, and ministerial approval for transfer of fishin…
Source excerpt
Ismail v Jantjies and Others (11318/23) [2025] ZAWCHC 128 (6 March 2025)
The court found that although the applicant and first respondent intended to enter into a sale agreement for the property in 2020, the agreement failed to comply with statutory requirements. Specifically, the agreement was not signed by all necessary parties, including the Master's representative for the late second respondent's estate and the current spouse of the first respondent, as required by the Matrimonial Property Act. The lack of written consent from the spouse and failure to comply with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act rendered the agreement void ab initio. The applicant d…
Source excerpt
D.M v D.M [2025] ZAGPJHC 31; [2025] 2 All SA 398 (GJ); 2025 (4) SA 183 (GJ) (28 January 2025)
The court held that section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act requires a spouse to furnish full particulars of the value of their estate upon request, and this duty arises during divorce proceedings, not only upon dissolution of the marriage. However, the court retains a discretion to regulate its own process and may refuse to compel compliance with a section 7 notice if it is impractical, premature, or prejudicial. In this case, the respondent failed to demonstrate any compelling reason to resist disclosure, and no real prejudice would result from granting the application. The pending separa…
Source excerpt
W.A.S.B v J.M.K (046725/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 44 (17 January 2025)
Rule 43 interim maintenance and legal-costs application dismissed for non-disclosure and insufficient proof of need.
Explore more
