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
Thulo v Madolo and Another (697/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 426 (31 October 2023)
High Court costs ruling on removal of an encroaching fence: respondents must pay removal costs, while each side bears its own litigation costs.
Acire Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Banzi Trade 31 (Pty) Ltd t/a Brickit (38683/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 764 (30 September 2022)
The High Court granted an interim interdict barring a tenant from removing disputed buildings from leased property pending an ownership action.
Legemaat N.O and Others v Arplorox (Pty) Ltd and Others (60278/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 569 (30 August 2021)
The High Court held that the applicants were the registered owners of the land, and that the respondent had no proven servitude, lease, or other right to use the track.
De Villiers v Kruger and Another (15162/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 66 (8 June 2018)
The Court found that the Order required removal of all obstructions and encroachments caused by the first respondent, but did not extend to trees that pre-existed his ownership and were not planted by him. The paving, constructed by the first respondent, constituted an encroachment and should have been removed, but both parties agreed it could remain for practical reasons. The remaining grass patches were not significant and did not amount to non-compliance. The Municipality was required to take active steps to remove and regularise encroachments to enable Riesling Street to be used as a publ…
Source excerpt
Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality v Tsoei and Another (3367/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 232 (15 December 2016)
High Court order for removal of a road-reserve encroachment by neighbouring property owners, rejecting a claimed compromise and awarding attorney-client costs.
Outdoor Network Ltd and Another v Strawberry Worx Pop (Pty) Ltd and Another (9531/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 11 (24 February 2015)
The High Court interdicted PRASA and its tenderer from using Outdoor Network’s advertising structures after lease termination, holding the structures remained the applicants’ property.
Ethekwini Municipality v Swish Property Eight (Pty) Ltd (1071/2012) [2013] ZAKZDHC 15 (29 April 2013)
The court found that the respondents erected advertising signage and related structures without the applicant's authority, in contravention of the applicant's advertising bylaws. The bylaws validly require written permission and the payment of prescribed fees for such signage. The respondents' constitutional challenge was not substantiated by evidence of the actual impact of the fees on their means or the revenue generated by the signage. The court distinguished the present case from Dawood, as the bylaws themselves do not prescribe the quantum of fees, which are set by regulation. The respon…
Source excerpt
De Friedland Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd v Pretorius and Another (20744/2008) [2010] ZAGPPHC 95 (5 August 2010)
The High Court rejected a prescription claim over an encroached strip of land, finding no proof of possessio civilis and ordering removal of the structures.
Lotter and Another v Roos and Another (54967/2007) [2008] ZAGPHC 153 (3 June 2008)
The court held that the sale remained subject to an unfulfilled suspensive condition, so the applicants could not cancel it for breach.
Explore more
