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
ABSA Bank Limited v Eternal City Trading 612 CC and Another (2022/006207) [2024] ZAGPJHC 29 (17 January 2024)
The High Court granted ABSA rei vindicatio relief for the return of vehicles after default under instalment sale agreements, and also granted condonation.
Uvongo Falls 26 (PTY) Ltd v Grayston Chambers (PTY) Ltd and Another (18211/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 446 (4 May 2020)
The court found that although the first respondent committed a material breach of the lease agreement by failing to pay rental, the applicant did not cancel the lease agreement in accordance with the oral terms agreed on 4 May 2017. The evidence showed that the lease was month-to-month and could only be terminated with one month's notice, not the 14 days provided by the applicant. The applicant's reliance on the Benmore lease agreement's breach clause was misplaced, as those terms did not apply to the Grayston lease. Consequently, the cancellation was invalid, and the application for eviction…
Source excerpt
Van Pletzen and Another v Coetzer and Others (526/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 185 (6 December 2018)
The High Court held that a 2011 family agreement about payment under a will was valid and enforceable, but the plaintiffs failed to cancel it properly.
Makah v Magic Vending (Pty) Ltd; Ngolo v Magic Vending (Pty) Ltd (A325/2016; A326/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 142; 2018 (3) SA 241 (WCC) (16 May 2017)
The High Court held that the CPA’s 20-business-day cancellation rule applies only to fixed-term agreements, not month-to-month leases, and dismissed two eviction appeals.
National Consumer Commission v M. Kleynhans t/a 3 Palms Bed and Breakfast Kuilsriver (NCT/63897/201673(2)(b)) [2016] ZANCT 62 (24 December 2016)
The Tribunal found a 50% cancellation fee unreasonable for a booking cancelled 76 days in advance and ordered the respondent to refund the balance.
Group Five Construction (Pty) Limited and others v Member of the Executive Council for Public Transport Roads And Works Gauteng and Others (2009/31971) [2015] ZAGPJHC 55; [2015] 2 All SA 716 (GJ) ; 2015 (5) SA 26 (GJ) (13 February 2015)
The court found that the second demand did not comply with the guarantee's requirements, as no written notice of cancellation was attached and the summons did not constitute such notice. The guarantee required a clear, unequivocal written notice of cancellation due to contractor default, which was absent. The evidence showed that the contract had not been cancelled for default but had merely expired, and contemporaneous documents confirmed this. The demand was therefore fraudulent, as it misrepresented the grounds for cancellation. The guarantee was held to be extinguished and unenforceable,…
Source excerpt
Geyer and Another v McGregor (2708/2014) [2014] ZAECPEHC 78 (10 October 2014)
The High Court held that the seller’s cancellation of a property sale was invalid for lack of contractual and statutory notice, and ordered specific performance.
Nel N.O. and Others v Steyl N.O. and Others (3496/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 230 (29 November 2013)
The court granted eviction after finding the tenant breached a lease by failing to fence the property and pay rental, and rejected the invoice-based defense.
Brisen Commodities (Edms) Bpk v Farmsecure (Edms) Bpk and Others (A255/11) [2012] ZAFSHC 31 (1 March 2012)
The court dismissed an appeal against exceptions to a claim based on a co-operation agreement, holding that contractual notice and arbitration steps had to be pleaded.
SA Taxi Securitation (Pty) Ltd v Mbovane and Others (6687/2009) [2011] ZAWCHC 227 (17 May 2011)
The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did disclose a cause of action. The plaintiff had pleaded that it furnished the defendants with notice terminating the debt review process in terms of section 86(10) of the National Credit Act, and that the defendants were in default for the requisite periods. The court found that clause 9.2 of the lease agreement required notice only if the defendant was entitled to it, and that the plaintiff had complied with the statutory notice requirements. The defendants were not protected against enforcement proceedings because, at the time the s…
Source excerpt
Explore more
