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
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Symes and Another (6037/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 78 (28 February 2025)
The High Court held that the bank had cancelled the finance agreements before liquidation, retained ownership of the excavators, and was entitled to sale and rental proceeds.
Fontana Di Purezza (Pty) Ltd ta Manzi Northcliff v Trustees for Time Being OG ZYZZYVA Trust (2024/120994) [2025] ZAGPJHC 154 (6 February 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish true urgency, as the delay of two months before launching the application rendered the matter inappropriate for urgent relief. The applicant's concerns regarding the safety of the equipment and premises, as well as the alleged risk to assets, did not constitute objective urgency. The applicant's urgency was self-created. Furthermore, the proprietary and partnership disputes between the parties were complex and unsuitable for resolution in urgent motion proceedings. The applicant did not demonstrate a clear right to the interdictory relief…
Source excerpt
Maboka v Raymico and Another (J 1490/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 331 (16 November 2023)
The Labour Court held that a vehicle registered to a company director in his personal capacity could not be attached to satisfy a CCMA award against the company.
Crossmoor Transport (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Limited and Others (9953/23P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 90 (4 September 2023)
The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to stop execution on a consent order because the applicant failed to prove a prima facie right.
Pollock NO and Others v Camara and Another (2395/2010) [2013] ZANWHC 35 (18 April 2013)
The court found that the instalment sale agreement between Instabrite and the respondents was valid and not void ab initio solely because Instabrite was not the owner of the equipment at the time of sale. However, fraudulent misrepresentation by Instabrite regarding ownership and absence of liabilities entitled the respondents to rescind the contract and claim restitution. Nevertheless, in the context of liquidation, the applicants as liquidators are obliged to recover and realise assets for the benefit of all creditors, and restitution must occur within the liquidation process. The responden…
Source excerpt
Explore more
