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
Sheriff Bloemfontein West v Carospan (Pty) Ltd and Another (4587/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 21 (30 January 2024)
Interpleader over attached household movables. The High Court held that Eileen Joubert failed to prove ownership, except for items 44 and 46, and costs followed her.
Sheriff, Bloemfontein West v Majiedt N.O and Another (1935/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 493 (21 December 2023)
In an interpleader dispute, the court held that the Trust failed to rebut the presumption that movables in the debtor’s possession belonged to him.
Adimoolum v Nxumalo and Others (JR1447/22) [2023] ZALCJHB 84 (22 March 2023)
The court found that Marumo and the director of Drewmach failed to provide satisfactory evidence of ownership of the attached assets. The commercial agreements presented, including the loan and lease agreements, were deemed a facade created by blood relatives to circumvent execution. The absence of proof of purchase and the contradictory statements regarding ownership rendered the claimants' case deficient. The legal presumption that assets found at the premises of the execution debtor belong to the debtor was not rebutted. The court concluded that the attached assets should remain subject to…
Source excerpt
George Speropoulos Trust v Tau Rollermeule CC; In re: Sheriff Klerksdorp v Tau Rollermeule CC and Others (56776/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 637 (29 September 2017)
The court dismissed a late application for leave to appeal and an extension of time, finding no good cause and no reasonable prospects of success.
Stassen Sheriff of the High Court, Bellville v De Ville Cabinet Component CC and Others (16118/2012) [2014] ZAWCHC 71 (9 May 2014)
The court found that the Second Claimant provided credible and satisfactory evidence, supported by documentation and corroborated by Francois, that he remained the owner of all attached movable assets except the PC. The lease agreements were genuine and not simulated, and the arrangement whereby replacements also became the property of the Second Claimant was logical and not suspicious. The First Respondent and Francois never exercised the option to purchase the assets, and no payment was made. The presumption of ownership arising from possession was successfully rebutted by the Second Claima…
Source excerpt
Explore more
