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
Tlhapi v Bangane and Others (2018/21599) [2025] ZAGPJHC 22 (17 January 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to set aside transfer of immovable property, holding the respondent’s ownership was valid and unassailable.
Kommandantsdrift v Brits and Others (5171/2015 ; 4070/2015) [2025] ZAWCHC 94 (13 January 2025)
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
Melelwe v Songca and Others (03566/19) [2024] ZAGPJHC 42 (19 January 2024)
The court set aside a later sale of property by an estate executrix because the land was already bound by a prior valid sale to the applicant.
Zato v Madikande and Others (349/21) [2022] ZAWCHC 276 (9 February 2022)
The court found that the applicant intended to sell the property and signed all necessary documents for transfer. The transfer was registered and the purchase price paid. The alleged fraud by the estate agent did not affect the real agreement between the applicant and the first respondent. Section 28(2) of the Alienation of Land Act validated the transaction as the requirements for transfer and payment were met. The absence of witness signatures did not invalidate the agreement. The applicant's cancellation was neither communicated effectively nor accepted, and no grounds existed to reverse t…
Source excerpt
Hlongwane and Others v Moshoaliba and Others (A5009/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 114 (2 February 2018)
The court held that the transfer of the property into Dennis Hlongwane's name was valid and enforceable under the abstract theory of transfer, as the appellants had consciously elected to have Dennis registered as owner and did not insist on any endorsement restricting his rights. The agreement among siblings was a personal arrangement and did not create a real right enforceable against third parties or subsequent purchasers. The title deed was not defective, and the failure to endorse it with a 'family house' restriction did not justify cancellation under section 6 of the Deeds Registries Ac…
Source excerpt
Otto v Scholtz and Others (3259/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 140 (23 February 2016)
The court finds that the abstract theory of ownership, which requires delivery and a valid real agreement but not a formally valid underlying contract, should apply to the transfer of shares in South African law. However, there is a material dispute of fact on the papers regarding the intention of the parties and the terms of the real agreement. The applicant maintains that no agreement was concluded and no payment made, while the respondents assert that an oral or tacit agreement existed and that ownership was intended to pass. Given the conflicting versions and the inability to resolve the…
Source excerpt
Sidwell N.O v Buisson N.O and Others (4944/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 177 (18 August 2015)
The High Court set aside a farm transfer to a trust after finding invalid trustee resolutions, an ineffective trustee resignation, and a defective power of attorney.
Rampedi and Another v Njisane and Others (03876/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 184 (3 August 2015)
The High Court held that a liquidator appointed under a divorce order validly transferred immovable property, and granted eviction against the former owners.
Magudu Game Company (Pty) Ltd v Mathenjwa N.O and Others (2483/07) [2008] ZAKZHC 3; [2008] 2 All SA 338 (N) (23 January 2008)
The court held that the applicant owned the game in the reserve because ownership passed when internal fences were removed, and the trust could not claim it.
Dreyer and Another v AXZS Industries (Pty) Ltd (250/2004) [2005] ZASCA 88; [2006] 3 All SA 219 (SCA); 2006 (5) SA 548 (SCA) (26 September 2005)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that AXZS Industries failed to prove ownership of disputed equipment and upheld the appeal, ordering the defendant absolved from the instance.
Explore more
