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
Smith v Smith and Others (A250/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 75 (4 March 2025)
Appeal dismissed in an eviction dispute after the court upheld an oral lease, rejected a claimed right of habitation, and confirmed the eviction order.
Makhele NO v Mhlomi and Another (27040/2021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 103 (5 February 2025)
The applicant failed to establish locus standi to seek eviction and arrear rental, as she did not provide sufficient documentary evidence linking her authority to the property or demonstrating ownership. The respondent's version regarding improvements and the existence of an improvement lien could not be rejected as false or untenable. There were irresoluble factual disputes regarding the lease agreement, rental amount, and ownership, which were known to the applicant prior to launching the application. The applicant did not seek referral to trial or oral evidence, and motion proceedings were…
Source excerpt
Arrowgem Limited v Garces (M716/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 286 (20 November 2024)
The North West High Court refused to postpone an eviction application pending a related action, finding no adequate basis for delay and awarding costs against the applicant.
Hedo Investments CC v Matsico Funeral Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (49050/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 951 (17 September 2024)
The court ordered eviction from business premises after finding no lawful right of occupation, rejecting non-joinder and fact-dispute objections, and awarding punitive costs.
Domel v Khumalo and Another (2020-34517) [2024] ZAGPJHC 164 (19 February 2024)
The High Court granted eviction after finding no proved option to buy, sustained non-payment of rent and charges, and a properly cancelled lease.
Inyanda Capital (Pty) Limited v M Sohag Trading (Pty) Limited (2023/081996) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1179 (18 October 2023)
The court found that the respondent failed to establish the existence of a bona fide oral five-year lease agreement. The evidence showed that the respondent applied for a lease and underwent a vetting process, but no written agreement was concluded. The respondent's version was improbable and unsupported by contemporaneous documentation or payment records. The respondent failed to respond to specific requests for details of the alleged oral lease and did not pay the full rental and charges as claimed. The court held that the applicant, as owner, was entitled to eject the respondent by way of…
Source excerpt
Lismer Properties CC and Others v Bhorat and Others (8856/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1215 (21 September 2023)
The court found that the applicants proved ownership of the property and that the respondents were in occupation. The respondents failed to establish a lawful entitlement to remain, as no valid oral or written lease agreement was concluded. The WhatsApp messages did not constitute a binding agreement, and the intended parties never signed any recorded terms. The trustees collectively decided not to enter into any lease with the respondents. The respondents have not paid rent, rates, or utilities, and their continued occupation prejudices the insolvent estate and its creditors. The respondents…
Source excerpt
Lismer Properties CC and Others v Bhorat and Others (45028/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1199 (20 September 2023)
The High Court granted a PIE eviction, finding no valid lease and holding that the respondents’ continued occupation was unlawful and unjustified.
X-Pharm (Pty) Ltd v Emoyamed Hospital (Pty) Ltd and Another (6458/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 197 (25 May 2023)
The High Court granted spoliatory relief, finding the applicant had de facto possession of pharmacy premises and was unlawfully deprived of access when the locks were changed.
Chloorkop Motor City CC v Mybuya Africa Panel Beating and Mechanical CC (2021/20343) [2023] ZAGPJHC 73 (31 January 2023)
The plaintiff failed to clearly establish its claim for arrear rental, as the claim was not founded on liquid documents and the affidavit in support of summary judgment did not adequately address the 2013 agreement of sale relied upon by the defendant. The defendant set up a bona fide defence based on the alleged sale agreement and counterclaim. The procedural irregularity raised under Rule 30 regarding non-compliance with Rule 32 time periods was rendered moot by the dismissal of the summary judgment application. Accordingly, summary judgment was refused and leave to defend was granted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
