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
Wood v Miller and Another (2023/052464) [2025] ZAGPJHC 396 (22 April 2025)
The High Court referred a horse-ownership dispute to oral evidence after finding material factual disputes over ownership, estoppel, and a later promise to return the horse.
Movienet Networks (Pty) Ltd and Another v Motus Ford Culemborg and Others (13781/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 231 (2 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for release of a vehicle after a business email compromise dispute, finding the requested interdict was not competent.
Barloworld Equipment Southern Africa A Division of Barloworld South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mekgopaze Nkosi Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd and Others (9952/2023) [2024] ZAKZPHC 55; [2024] 4 All SA 127 (KZP) (18 July 2024)
The court found it had jurisdiction as the cause of action arose and the equipment was located within KwaZulu-Natal. There was no genuine dispute of fact; Malonjeni's denials were general and unsupported, and its own correspondence admitted possession of the equipment. Barloworld established ownership through evidence of exclusive purchase rights and delivery. The requirements for rei vindicatio were met: ownership, possession by Malonjeni at commencement, and identifiable equipment. The second interlocutory application for further discovery failed as the issue had been resolved and the reque…
Source excerpt
Eco Trades (Pty) Ltd v Trustees for the Time Being of the DA Pauw Trust and Others (453/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 57 (29 February 2024)
The High Court found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed a motion for vindicatory relief over a solar system because key contractual and factual disputes could not be resolved on the papers.
Setshekgamollo and Others v Majang Incorporated Attorneys and Others (9613/2022) [2023] ZALMPPHC 78 (31 August 2023)
The court found that the applicants established urgency as the sheriff was scheduled to sell assets imminently, and communications between the parties did not resolve the ownership dispute. The applicants demonstrated a clear right to the Hyundai H1, the dryer, and the fridge through documentary evidence. The court held that injury was reasonably apprehended because the sale would violate the applicants' rights. The applicants lacked an adequate alternative remedy, as claiming from the fourth respondent would not afford similar protection, given his apparent lack of means. The requirements fo…
Source excerpt
ABSA Bank Limited v Phiri N.O. and Others (3881/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 365 (28 October 2022)
The court granted ABSA interim relief for 43 financed movable assets still unpaid, pending declaratory proceedings, and rejected urgency, jurisdiction, and joinder objections.
Boshoff v Tristar Custom Feeders (Pty) Ltd and Others (2033/2020) [2022] ZANCHC 61 (30 September 2022)
The court found that Boshoff retained ownership of the calves at the time of the application, as he did not intend to pass ownership until full payment was received. This intention was communicated to his agent and, on the probabilities, to the buyer. The evidence established that Boshoff's business practice was to issue invoices only after payment and that he had a financial obligation due on 2 November 2020, reinforcing his intention to retain ownership. The respondents failed to lead evidence to the contrary and relied solely on documentation, which was insufficient to rebut Boshoff's vers…
Source excerpt
Compair (SA) (Pty) Limited v Van Jaarsveldt N.O. and Others (47458/21) [2022] ZAGPJHC 513 (3 August 2022)
The High Court held that section 84(1) of the Insolvency Act did not require paragraph (d) of the National Credit Act definition to be met, and dismissed the application.
LK v PK (21/19630) [2022] ZAGPJHC 194 (2 February 2022)
The High Court granted rei vindicatio relief, ordering return of the applicant’s goods and vehicle and awarding 80% costs on an attorney-client scale.
Bornman v Karan Beef; In Re: Sheriff of the High Court, Theunissen v Karan Beef and Another (1899/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 195 (22 October 2020)
The court dismissed an interpleader claim to attached game, finding Jan Frederick Bornman failed to prove ownership and ordering costs against him.
Explore more
