South Africa Case Law

Mit Mak Motors CC 2005/028211/23 v Zitha and Others (29653/19)

Mit Mak Motors CC 2005/028211/23 v Zitha and Others (29653/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 650 (2 September 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29653/19

Judge

NN Bam

The court found that the vehicle sold by the defendants to the plaintiff was stolen and cloned, as evidenced by uncontested testimony from SAPS officers and supporting documentation. The defendants failed to provide credible evidence or critical information to support their version and did not challenge the plaintiff's witnesses effectively. Applying the principle that only an owner or authorised agent may transfer ownership, the court held that the defendants lacked authority to transfer the vehicle, rendering the sale agreement null and void. The plaintiff was entitled to the return of the…

Source excerpt

• Transfer Of Ownership
• Sale Of Stolen Property
• Nullity Of Contract
• Monetary Jurisdiction
• Attorney Client Costs

Barkley-Wes Motors CC v Iceburg Trading 507 CC and Others (1147/2016)

Barkley-Wes Motors CC v Iceburg Trading 507 CC and Others (1147/2016) [2022] ZANCHC 30 (27 May 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1147/2016

Judge

Lever

High Court commercial judgment on an unpaid fuel account. The court dismissed jurisdiction and illegality objections, but held only the first defendant liable for the debt.

• Sale Of Goods On Credit
• Agency
• Monetary Jurisdiction
• Joint And Several Liability
• Enforceability Of Contract
• Payment On Account

Fairvest Property Holdings v Valdimax CC t/a Fish and Chips Co and Others (A3019/2019)

Fairvest Property Holdings v Valdimax CC t/a Fish and Chips Co and Others (A3019/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 435; 2020 (3) SA 202 (GJ) (1 November 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3019/2019

Judges

MV Noko, I Opperman

The court held that the magistrate's court lacked monetary jurisdiction over the appellant's claim, which exceeded R100,000, unless written consent was provided in terms of section 45 of the Magistrates' Court Act. The consent to jurisdiction clause in the lease and suretyship agreements could only be relied upon against the second respondent, who admitted the suretyship agreement; the first and third respondents disputed the agreements and did not provide written consent. The appellant's claim was a single globular amount, not supported by separate monthly causes of action within jurisdictio…

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Monetary Jurisdiction
• Consent To Jurisdiction
• Litis Contestatio
• Special Plea
• Suretyship

Kintetsu World Express South Africa (Pty) Ltd v LCD Consultants CC, Aveng Trident Steel (Pty) Ltd v Steel Plate and Piping (Pty) Ltd, Trident Speciality Steel v Ngobozane (11741/13, 13043/13, 14213/13)

Kintetsu World Express South Africa (Pty) Ltd v LCD Consultants CC, Aveng Trident Steel (Pty) Ltd v Steel Plate and Piping (Pty) Ltd, Trident Speciality Steel v Ngobozane (11741/13, 13043/13, 14213/13) [2013] ZAGPJHC 241 (2 October 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11741/13, 13043/13, 14213/13

Judge

Monama

The High Court dismissed three unopposed money claims brought within the regional court’s jurisdiction, holding the forum choice was an abuse.

• Monetary Jurisdiction
• Abuse Of Process
• Specific Performance
• Access To Justice
• Monetary-jurisdiction
• Abuse-of-process