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
Madi Investments (Pty) Ltd v African Tanacity (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/071165) [2024] ZAGPPHC 382 (19 April 2024)
The High Court held that two loan claims were not displaced by a later MoU, and granted judgment for repayment, interest, and costs.
Dludla NO and Others v Isabelle and Others (8522/2020) [2022] ZAKZDHC 22 (17 May 2022)
The High Court confirmed a rule nisi after finding a farming memorandum was not validly authorised by trust trustees and rejected the respondents' version as untenable.
One Vision Investments 344 (Pty) Ltd v Smith and Others (76711/2014) [2020] ZAGPPHC 53 (7 February 2020)
The High Court held that the MOU, Sale of Equity and Cession were valid and binding, dismissed Mr Smith’s counterclaims, and ordered specific performance.
Ronhold Investments (Pty) Ltd v Miranda Coal (Pty) Ltd and Others (79954/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 43 (5 February 2020)
The High Court referred a corporate shareholding dispute to oral evidence after finding material factual conflicts about a 40% share claim and related loan account.
Selekane and Another v Legacy Ventures (Pty) Ltd and Others (16841/2015) [2018] ZAGPJHC 575 (19 October 2018)
The court dismissed a restitution claim because the plaintiffs did not plead or prove cancellation of the memorandum of understanding.
Mwelase and Others v Director-General for the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC107/2013) [2016] ZALCC 21 (14 November 2016)
The court found that although the Minister may have erred in interpreting the order, his actions did not amount to wilful or mala fide non-compliance. The Minister genuinely believed that his conduct was in compliance with the court order, and there was no evidence of deliberate disregard for the authority of the court. The order required good faith negotiation, but the Minister's interpretation and subsequent actions, while possibly mistaken, were not shown to be in bad faith. As a result, the requirements for contempt of court were not met, and the application was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Mapcivil and Landscaping and Others v Giyani Engineering and Consulting (CC) and Others (6915/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1135 (14 September 2016)
The court found that there was sufficient documentary evidence, including a signed Memorandum of Understanding, to suggest the existence of an agreement between the parties. However, the respondents raised substantial disputes regarding the validity and application of the MoU, including allegations of duress and non-compliance with tender requirements. The court determined that these disputes could not be resolved solely on the papers and that viva voce evidence was necessary to interpret the agreement and ascertain the parties' intentions. The application was therefore referred to oral evide…
Source excerpt
Superkolong (Pty) Ltd v Gemcore (Pty) Ltd (1451/2010) [2016] ZANCHC 55 (29 July 2016)
The Full Bench upheld an appeal and dismissed enrichment claims, holding that a no-claim clause in the October 2008 MOU barred recovery and the payments were traceable to the August 2008 arrangement.
Radio Network Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v Poynting Antennas (Pty) Ltd and Another (7715/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 227 (24 March 2016)
The court found that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim, when read as a whole, are clear and sufficiently detailed to disclose a cause of action based on breach of contract and duty of care arising from the Memorandum of Understanding. The alleged failure of the defendants to act diligently and the resulting damages are adequately pleaded, and the mechanics of what constitutes diligent action are matters for evidence. The court distinguished the cited case law, noting that the plaintiffs' claim is contractual and not based on public interest policy. The exception was dismissed as the pleadi…
Source excerpt
K Carrim Commercial Properties (Pty) Limited v Urban Hip Hop Hotels (Pty) Limited (17146/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 528 (12 June 2015)
The High Court held that the signed MOU was the sole memorial of the parties’ agreement and that the unsigned standard management agreement did not apply.
Explore more
