South Africa Case Law

Slim B and D Construction (Pty) Ltd v Caterpillar Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (105847/2024)

Slim B and D Construction (Pty) Ltd v Caterpillar Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (105847/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 780 (4 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

105847/2024

Judge

MP Kumalo

The court held that the respondent was bound by its settlement offer and ordered transfer of the equipment to the applicant, rejecting the unilateral mistake defence.

• Instalment Sale Agreement
• Unilateral Mistake
• Ownership Transfer
• Settlement Agreement
• Unilateral-mistake
• Settlement-agreements

Kommandantsdrift v Brits and Others (5171/2015 ; 4070/2015)

Kommandantsdrift v Brits and Others (5171/2015 ; 4070/2015) [2025] ZAWCHC 94 (13 January 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5171/2015 ; 4070/2015

Judge

Nuku

The court found that all parties laboured under a common mistake regarding the subject matter of the transfers, believing they were dealing only with Micheal's Farm rather than the consolidated property. This mistake vitiated the real agreement required for valid transfer of ownership under the abstract system. There was no evidence that the transferors or transferees intended to transfer or acquire ownership of the property as registered. Consequently, the transfers were void, and the plaintiff is entitled to rectification of the Deeds Office records and to be declared the rightful owner of…

Source excerpt

• Abstract System Of Transfer
• Rectification Of Deeds
• Common Mistake
• Ownership Transfer
• Real Agreement

Robert Paul Serne NO and Others v Mzamomhle Educare and Others (588/2023)

Robert Paul Serne NO and Others v Mzamomhle Educare and Others (588/2023) [2024] ZASCA 152 (12 November 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

588/2023

Judges

Ponnan, Makgoka, Mokgohloa, Mjali, Naidoo

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld a Trust’s rei vindicatio and ordered eviction, finding the respondents’ opposition was largely inadmissible hearsay and no defence.

• Rei Vindicatio
• Eviction
• Hearsay Evidence
• Ownership Transfer
• Abstract Theory Of Transfer
• Rei-vindicatio

Da Costa and Another v Sunset Game Lodge CC (9452/2023)

Da Costa and Another v Sunset Game Lodge CC (9452/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 172 (7 November 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

9452/2023

Judge

Bresler

The court found that the sale agreement expressly reserved ownership of the vehicles to the applicants until the full purchase price was paid. The respondent failed to pay the full amount and attempted to set off unrelated expenses, which the court rejected. Ownership did not pass to the respondent, and their possession of the vehicles was unlawful. The applicants were entitled to the return of the vehicles under the rei vindicatio. The cancellation of the sale agreement was valid, as the breach was material and no demand was required due to the terms of the agreement. The respondent's counte…

Source excerpt

• Rei Vindicatio
• Ownership Transfer
• Sale Agreement
• Specific Performance
• Contract Cancellation

Hyundai Automotive South Africa (Pty) Limited v Super Group Dealerships (Pty) Ltd ta Chatz (2023/034424)

Hyundai Automotive South Africa (Pty) Limited v Super Group Dealerships (Pty) Ltd ta Chatz (2023/034424) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1217 (11 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/034424

Judge

Aucamp

The court found that the applicant did not receive the full purchase price for the vehicle, as Kelmovitz paid only R270,000.00 of the R275,000.00 agreed price. Accordingly, ownership did not pass from the applicant to Kelmovitz, and thus could not have passed to the respondent. The court rejected the respondent's estoppel defence, finding no negligent representation by the applicant that Myburgh was authorised to dispose of the vehicle outside proper procedures. The respondent's reliance on Myburgh's position was not reasonable in the circumstances, given the incomplete payment and irregulari…

Source excerpt

• Rei Vindicatio
• Ownership Transfer
• Estoppel
• Sale Of Goods
• Agency
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Pristine Seafoods (Pty) Ltd v Collective Dream Studios (Pty) Ltd and Another (3834/2024)

Pristine Seafoods (Pty) Ltd v Collective Dream Studios (Pty) Ltd and Another (3834/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 294 (9 October 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3834/2024

Judge

E D Wille

High Court review of arbitration awards dismissed: the court held the second review was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel and found no bias or denial of a fair hearing.

• Arbitration Act 1965
• Remittal Of Award
• Issue Estoppel
• Res Judicata
• Fair Hearing
• Ownership Transfer

George and Another v Dirk and Others (56949/21)

George and Another v Dirk and Others (56949/21) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1255 (27 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

56949/21

Judge

Strydom

The High Court referred a property dispute to trial after finding factual issues on whether a sale and lease-back was a simulated loan arrangement.

• Simulated Transaction
• Sale And Leaseback
• National Credit Act
• Ownership Transfer
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Abstract Theory Of Transfer

SA Taxi Finance Solutions (Pty) Limited v Magube (9920/2022)

SA Taxi Finance Solutions (Pty) Limited v Magube (9920/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 706 (14 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

9920/2022

Judge

G.Y. Benson

The High Court granted summary judgment, confirmed cancellation of an instalment sale agreement, and ordered return of a Toyota Quantum after persistent non-payment.

• Summary Judgment
• Instalment Sale Agreement
• Vehicle Finance
• Bona Fide Defence
• Ownership Transfer
• Summary-judgment

Merchant West (Pty) Ltd v Hellmann and Others (21/27401)

Merchant West (Pty) Ltd v Hellmann and Others (21/27401) [2023] ZAGPJHC 213 (10 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/27401

Judge

N Manoim

The court found that Merchant West could not acquire ownership of the aircraft by constitutum possessorium on the effective date because CDC did not possess or own the aircraft at that time. The agreements specified the dates for transfer, but CDC only acquired ownership on 6 November 2019, after the effective date. Furthermore, the transaction between CDC and MW was found to be simulated, as MW was aware CDC had already paid for the aircraft and the financing was not genuinely for purchase but rather a loan secured by pledge. The court distinguished Boland Bank v Joseph on the facts and foll…

Source excerpt

• Ownership Transfer
• Constitutum Possessorium
• Simulated Transaction
• Pledge And Security
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Order

Gauteng Provincial Government: Department of Human Settlements and Others v Pogatsi and Others (2020/19559)

Gauteng Provincial Government: Department of Human Settlements and Others v Pogatsi and Others (2020/19559) [2022] ZAGPJHC 762 (7 October 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/19559

Judge

Manoim

The court found that the Family House Rights Agreement did not confer any rights of ownership or possession to the applicants or their descendants. The agreement only provided for certain temporary rights of tenancy, which were not exercised. The transfer of the property to the first respondent in 2006 was not shown to be erroneous, and there was no evidential basis to go behind the existing terms of the deed. The applicants failed to establish any legal grounds for rectification of the title deed or for the relief sought. The application was accordingly dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Rectification Of Title Deed
• Conversion Act
• Family Rights Agreement
• Ownership Transfer
• Urban Land Permits