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
Muller and Others v Visagie and Others (UM286/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 218 (24 November 2023)
The court confirmed a rule nisi stopping alleged unsanctioned hunts and threats, but discharged a second rule nisi about lion skins as moot.
Cordier v Poolman (1489/2019) [2019] ZANCHC 31 (23 July 2019)
Urgent interdict refused where the applicant sought to stop hunting of game pending a damages action, but had cancelled the agreement and showed no prima facie right.
Botha N.O. and Others v Carstens and Others (50323/14) [2017] ZAGPPHC 527 (10 August 2017)
The court found that the applicants, as provisional trustees, had established a prima facie right to preserve the game pending determination of its ownership. The respondents' evidence regarding ownership was contradictory and lacked bona fides, undermining their opposition. The applicants demonstrated a reasonable apprehension that the assets of the insolvent estate could be dissipated or concealed, justifying the need for interim relief. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and there was no satisfactory alternative remedy. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisf…
Source excerpt
JS Afslears CC t/a Swarico Afslaers v Botha N.O and Others (50323/14) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1294 (10 August 2017)
The High Court refused Swarico leave to intervene in a dispute over ownership of game, finding contradictory affidavits and no protectable interest.
Magudu Game Company (Pty) Ltd v Mathenjwa N.O and Others (2483/07) [2008] ZAKZHC 3; [2008] 2 All SA 338 (N) (23 January 2008)
The court held that the applicant owned the game in the reserve because ownership passed when internal fences were removed, and the trust could not claim it.
Strydom and Another v Liebenberg (293/06) [2007] ZASCA 117; [2007] SCA 117 (RSA) (25 September 2007)
The court held that the plaintiff retained ownership of the game on the properties, but could not recover its value because it could not be apportioned between defendants.
Explore more
