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
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The High Court rescinded a 1994 default judgment and execution sale over a Soweto property, finding the bank failed to join a co-owning spouse and the bond transaction was invalid.
Tshatshu and Another v Standard Bank of SA Limited and Others (1787/2014) [2016] ZAECGHC 43 (6 May 2016)
The court found that the applicants were fraudulently induced to sign documents effecting the sale and transfer of their property to Dream World, without true consent or understanding. The scheme was designed to exploit financially vulnerable homeowners, and the applicants' intention was never to alienate ownership. The agreements and associated documents are null and void due to fraud. The bank's rights under the mortgage bond cannot stand where the underlying transfer is invalid. Estoppel does not operate against the applicants, as their conduct did not amount to a negligent misrepresentati…
Source excerpt
Maine v Mosebo and Others (46283/13) [2015] ZAGPJHC 287 (13 August 2015)
Eviction dismissed after the court found a Brusson-scheme transfer, bond and sale in execution were void ab initio and ordered restitution to the Dubes.
Radebe and Another v Sheriff For the District of Vereeniging and Others (31495/13) [2014] ZAGPJHC 228 (25 September 2014)
The court found the Brusson scheme to be fraudulent, with the applicants never intending to sell their property but rather to secure a loan. The agreements signed were simulated and invalid, lacking the necessary intention for transfer of ownership. The mortgage bond registered in favour of Nedbank was declared invalid as it arose from unlawful transactions. Estoppel cannot be used to perpetuate an unlawful state of affairs, and the caveat subscriptor rule does not bind the applicants where they were misled. The application was not time-barred as the applicants acted promptly upon learning of…
Source excerpt
Explore more
