South Africa Case Law

W.M.T v M[...].T[...] .9[...] (Pty) Ltd and Others (D6021/2023)

W.M.T v M[...].T[...] .9[...] (Pty) Ltd and Others (D6021/2023) [2025] ZAKZDHC 19 (7 May 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D6021/2023

Judge

Mossop

The court found that there is a real and bona fide dispute of fact regarding whether an oral agreement was concluded between the applicant and the third respondent, and if so, on what terms. The correspondence and affidavits submitted by both parties reveal ongoing negotiations and conflicting interpretations, with no clear consensus. The existence of two emails from the third respondent could have led the applicant to believe an agreement was reached, but subsequent communications indicate otherwise. Given the limited scope of the issues and the interests of justice, the court determined tha…

Source excerpt

• Dispute Of Fact
• Oral Agreement
• Motion Vs Action
• Uniform Rule 6 5 G
• Company Director Remuneration

Buying Exchange Company v Araujo and Another (2420/2007)

Buying Exchange Company v Araujo and Another (2420/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 120 (1 November 2007)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2420/2007

Judge

M.M. Mabesele

The High Court discharged a rule nisi for perfection of a notarial covering bond after finding a material dispute of fact about the underlying debt.

• Notarial Covering Bond
• Dispute Of Fact
• Motion Vs Action
• Security For Debt
• Notarial-covering-bond
• Dispute-of-fact

Nduna v Absa Bank Ltd and Others (4596/03)

Nduna v Absa Bank Ltd and Others (4596/03) [2003] ZAWCHC 71; [2004] 3 All SA 364 (C); 2004 (4) SA 453 (C) (12 December 2003)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4596/03

Judges

Hlophe JP, Yekiso J

The High Court held that the PIE Act, read in conjunction with its preamble and section 9, clearly intends to confer jurisdiction on magistrates' courts to entertain eviction proceedings brought by application (motion) as well as action. The term 'proceedings' in PIE is sufficiently broad to encompass applications, and section 5 of PIE, which deals with urgent evictions, necessitates application proceedings. The historical limitation of magistrates' courts to actions initiated by summons does not apply to PIE eviction proceedings. Denying magistrates' courts jurisdiction over application proc…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Eviction Proceedings
• Motion Vs Action
• Constitutional Values In Eviction