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.
Burglar Alarm & Remote Control Services CC v Brits (8917/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 32 (7 February 2024)
The court held that a fence marked the boundary for more than 30 years and declared the plaintiff owner of the disputed strip by acquisitive prescription.
Bakgatla-Ba-Kgafela Strategic Investment Company (Pty) Ltd v Meneguzzo and Another (2103/2013) [2017] ZANWHC 44 (1 June 2017)
High Court prescription case on whether section 13(1)(b) delays prescription for debtors outside South Africa; main and first alternative claims were prescribed, but the e-mail-based claim survived.
Land And Agricultural Development Bank Of South Africa v Factaprops 1052 CC and Another (64702/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 293 (19 May 2014)
The court held that a special notarial bond registered over movable property does not qualify as a mortgage bond under section 11(a)(i) of the Prescription Act, 1969. The debt in question originated from a loan agreement, not from the notarial bond itself. Therefore, the applicable prescription period is three years under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act. Since the respondent's claim was instituted more than three years after the debts became due and payable, the claim is prescribed. The proposed amendment to the plea introducing a special plea of prescription discloses a valid defence a…
Source excerpt
Bester and Others v Schmidt Bou Ontwikkelings (1689/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 475 (21 September 2011)
The High Court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal on prescription and estoppel issues arising from a deed rectification dispute.
Silouette Investments Ltd. v Virgin Hotels Group Ltd. (116/2008) [2009] ZASCA 40; 2009 (4) SA 617 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 172 (SCA) (31 March 2009)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent, although a foreign company, was not 'outside the Republic' for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the Prescription Act because it had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the South African courts and authorised its South African attorneys to accept service of process. This eliminated any legal or practical impediment to instituting proceedings, which is the mischief section 13(1)(b) seeks to address. The court further found that the interruption of prescription effected by service of the original summons lapsed when the appellant…
Source excerpt
Explore more
