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
Mncadi and Another v Langa (AR195/2024) [2025] ZAKZPHC 71 (1 August 2025)
Appeal dismissed; the respondent’s open, uninterrupted occupation for over 30 years proved acquisitive prescription and ownership of the property.
Du Plooy and Another v Sheriff for the District of Virginia and Others (5326/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 147 (29 May 2025)
The court dismissed an urgent application for an interdict over auctioned movable property, finding the matter moot and the applicants' ownership case unproven.
Lambrakis v Taliakis and Another (2025/059253) [2025] ZAGPJHC 542 (28 May 2025)
The court struck an urgent application off the roll, finding the applicant failed to show that substantial redress would not be available in due course.
Steeledale (Pty) Ltd v Scaw South Africa (Pty) Ltd ta Scaw Metals Group and Another (2020/19785) [2025] ZAGPJHC 411 (29 April 2025)
The application for a final interdict and declaratory relief fails because the ownership of the assets listed in annexure JFE1 is strongly disputed and cannot be resolved on the papers in motion proceedings. The dispute involves complex factual questions regarding whether the assets are movable or have acceded to the property, requiring expert evidence and cross-examination. The intention of the parties at the time of contracting is central to determining ownership, but the available evidence is insufficient. The respondent's version must prevail under the Plascon Evans principle, and Steelda…
Source excerpt
New Model Projects v Levenbro Centre (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/019086) [2025] ZAGPJHC 144 (14 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed leave to appeal against refusal of an urgent interim interdict, finding the applicant’s harm allegations speculative and unsupported.
Gradco South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mahlopi Metals Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (6092/24) [2025] ZANWHC 23 (4 February 2025)
The court found that the applicant had established urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b), given the unlawful retention of the excavator and the risk of irreparable harm. The applicant proved ownership and entitlement to possession under the rei vindicatio, as the respondent failed to establish any right to retain the machine. The respondent's denial of the contract and ownership was contradicted by its own conduct, including intermittent payments and requests for payment extensions. No material dispute of fact existed that would preclude relief on the papers. The respondent's conduct warranted…
Source excerpt
Tlhapi v Bangane and Others (2018/21599) [2025] ZAGPJHC 22 (17 January 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to set aside transfer of immovable property, holding the respondent’s ownership was valid and unassailable.
Mamba Strike Force CC v Petzer and Others (2023-008788) [2025] ZAGPPHC 5 (6 January 2025)
The application became moot when the vehicles were placed with the liquidators, rendering the original relief sought by the applicant unnecessary. The applicant amended its notice of motion to seek a declaratory order of ownership but abandoned substantive relief at the hearing. The applicant's continued pursuit of the application after the primary relief became moot was unreasonable and resulted in unnecessary legal costs. The conduct of the applicant justified a punitive costs order to ensure fairness between the parties and prevent the respondents from bearing costs incurred due to the app…
Source excerpt
National Director of Public Prosecution v Fourie and Another (3295/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 409 (24 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed leave to appeal in a POCA forfeiture matter, finding no reasonable prospect of success on disputes about ownership, abandonment and proof.
Mvula v City of Cape Town and Others (Leave to Appeal) (8583/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 420 (11 December 2024)
Leave to appeal was refused in a vehicle-impoundment dispute. The court held that microdot evidence identified the vehicle as the SADTF vehicle and rejected a new fairness argument.
Explore more
