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
Takis v Taylor and Others (20399/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 137 (25 March 2025)
The High Court rejected a prescription claim over a cottage straddling two erven, finding permissive use and no animus domini, and ordered removal of the respondents’ belongings.
Philander v Makiet and Others (A61/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 106 (18 September 2020)
Appeal in an eviction matter under PIE. The High Court held the occupiers were unlawful, found eviction just and equitable, and ordered them to vacate by 31 October 2020.
Makeshift 1190 (Pty) Ltd v Cilliers (A38/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 41; [2020] 3 All SA 234 (WCC); 2020 (5) SA 538 (WCC) (25 May 2020)
Appeal over spoliatory relief for disconnection of farm electricity dismissed; the court held the right to electricity was incidental to occupation.
Khumalo v Len Smith Investment Holdings CC (LCC175/2016) [2020] ZALCC 28 (3 March 2020)
The Land Claims Court granted a spoliation order restoring the applicant’s access route to his homestead after gates were locked without reasonable notice.
Khumalo v Len Smith Investment Holdings CC (LCC175/2016) [2020] ZALCC 1 (3 March 2020)
The Land Claims Court granted a spoliation order restoring Khumalo’s access route over the respondent’s farm, finding a precarium and no lawful termination.
GM PaneelKloppers CC v GLL Advance Body Repair and Spray CC (4391/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 75 (19 March 2015)
The High Court ordered eviction after finding the occupier had no continuing right to remain, but secured any improvement claim with a covering bond.
Ark City of Refuge v Bailing and Others (A107/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 285 (10 August 2012)
The court found that the respondents were in unlawful occupation of the appellant's premises, as their circumstances had changed and they no longer qualified for temporary refuge or rehabilitation. The appellant, a charitable organization, was not constitutionally obliged to provide permanent housing, and its role was limited to temporary assistance. The PIE Act's requirements were met, and the respondents had been given notice and ample opportunity to secure alternative accommodation. The City of Cape Town, after initial reluctance, offered emergency housing, which the respondents refused wi…
Source excerpt
Beegte v Bruwer (38578/2005) [2009] ZAGPPHC 65 (8 May 2009)
High Court eviction case confirming removal of the respondent from a farm and the livestock kept there, after rejecting objections based on an alleged occupation right and PIE compliance.
Machaka v Mosala (2664/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 159 (19 October 2006)
The High Court ordered return of a BMW 318i, finding the applicant proved ownership under rei vindicatio and the respondent failed to prove a donation.
Explore more
