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
Mathebula v Moagi and Others (2024-084665) [2025] ZAGPPHC 473 (15 May 2025)
The High Court granted an eviction order after finding the applicant owned the property, the respondents occupied it unlawfully, and PIE requirements were met.
Orange Clove (Pty) Limited v Lowenstein and Others (20758/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 69 (30 January 2025)
The High Court granted eviction relief, holding the respondents had no valid right to occupy the unit and following earlier similar judgments in the same scheme.
Balhabou and Others v Blamey and Others (Reasons) (2954/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 54 (12 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent spoliation application, finding lis pendens, lack of urgency for the first applicant, and unresolved disputes of fact.
MEC for Department of Public Works & Infrastructure, Eastern Cape v Ngunuza and Others (1529/2020; 1789/2020; 2802/2020; 2794/2020; 1786/2020; 1779/2020) [2024] ZAECMHC 5 (23 January 2024)
The High Court granted eviction orders for government residential properties after finding the leases had ended and the respondents raised no valid defence.
Knoop NO and Another v Pillay and Others (8635/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 497; 2024 (3) SA 116 (GJ) (17 May 2023)
High Court granted a business rescue practitioner’s application to cancel a lease and evict occupiers from three Saxonwold properties for sale.
Osborne v Erasmus and Others (90835/2016) [2021] ZAGPPHC 220 (12 March 2021)
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's non-compliance with the rules and practice directives, specifically the failure to file the application within the prescribed period and the absence of a condonation application. The grounds for leave to appeal were vague, lacked legal and factual substance, and did not adequately inform the court or respondent of the case to be met. The appellant's denial of occupation was unsubstantiated and did not create a bona fide dispute of fact. The court found no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no compelling reasons…
Source excerpt
CUF Properties (Pty) Ltd v Mthimkulu and Others (2011/53946) [2018] ZAGPPHC 491 (23 April 2018)
The applicant proved lawful ownership of the property by producing the original deed of transfer and supporting documentation. The respondents failed to provide any evidence of fraud or irregularity in the transfer, nor did they take steps to challenge the transfer over several years. The court found the applicant to be the lawful owner. However, the information before the court regarding the personal circumstances of the respondents was insufficient to determine whether eviction would be just and equitable under sections 4(6) and 4(7) of the PIE Act. The court emphasized the positive duty on…
Source excerpt
T E and P Properties Investments CC v Mabasa and Others (38773/2013) [2017] ZAGPJHC 182 (25 May 2017)
The High Court granted an eviction order after finding the respondents had no legal right to occupy the property and that eviction was just and equitable.
Mahanjana v Webb and Others (90024/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1075 (20 December 2016)
The High Court granted eviction after finding the tenant breached a residential lease by unauthorised alterations and rental set-off, and that PIE notice requirements were met.
Botha NO and Another v Mouton and Others (25893/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 377 (4 March 2016)
The court found that there was no pending application for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal, as confirmed by the Registrar's letter, and thus no suspension of legal process. The respondents failed to identify any genuine dispute of fact; their answering affidavit consisted of bare denials without substantive engagement. The purported lease agreement was found to be a contrived document, created to frustrate the sequestration process and prejudicial to creditors, and had been cancelled. The respondents' occupation was therefore unlawful. The court held that the procedural requ…
Source excerpt
Explore more
