South Africa Case Law

Murcus M Farming CC v Eagles Valley Poultry (Pty) Ltd and Another (UM 239/2020)

Murcus M Farming CC v Eagles Valley Poultry (Pty) Ltd and Another (UM 239/2020) [2022] ZANWHC 13 (17 March 2022)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM 239/2020

Judge

R D Hendricks

Leave to appeal was refused against an interlocutory referral for oral evidence on occupational rent and the parties’ intentions under a sale agreement.

• Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders
• Referral For Oral Evidence
• Occupational Rent
• Interpretation Of Contract
• Reciprocity And Good Faith
• Appealability-of-interlocutory-orders

AMC Property (Pty) Ltd and Another v Kleynhans and Others (1348/2021)

AMC Property (Pty) Ltd and Another v Kleynhans and Others (1348/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 168 (11 August 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1348/2021

Judge

Voges, A J

High Court matter on whether occupiers had to vacate farms turned on a disputed oral agreement; the court referred the dispute to viva voce evidence.

• Unlawful Occupation
• Eviction
• Oral Agreement Dispute
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Dispute Of Fact
• Referral For Oral Evidence

Red Coral Investments 117 (Pty) Ltd v Bayas Logistics (Pty) Ltd (D6595/2018)

Red Coral Investments 117 (Pty) Ltd v Bayas Logistics (Pty) Ltd (D6595/2018) [2020] ZAKZDHC 56 (5 November 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D6595/2018

Judge

Henriques

The court found a material factual dispute about the oral lease, arrears, and cancellation, and referred the eviction application to oral evidence.

• Oral Lease Agreement
• Eviction
• Dispute Of Fact
• Referral For Oral Evidence
• Rei Vindicatio
• Oral-lease-agreement

Magano and Another v Dipheko (1532/2018)

Magano and Another v Dipheko (1532/2018) [2019] ZANCHC 37 (30 August 2019)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1532/2018

Judge

Sieberhagen

The court found that material disputes of fact exist regarding the circumstances of the signing of the Deed of Sale and the respondent's claim of innocent misrepresentation. These disputes cannot be resolved on affidavit alone. The evidence of third parties, such as the conveyancer and the person who presented the documents, is necessary to adjudicate the matter fairly. The court determined that the applicants could not have foreseen the respondent's reliance on innocent misrepresentation. Accordingly, the matter is referred for oral evidence under Rule 6(5)(g), and costs are reserved for the…

Source excerpt

• Specific Performance
• Sale Of Immovable Property
• Innocent Misrepresentation
• Dispute Of Fact
• Referral For Oral Evidence