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
Le Roux N.O and Others v J.J.B and Others (10535/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 118 (17 March 2025)
The High Court granted an eviction order after finding the respondents were unlawful occupiers whose lease had been validly cancelled.
Circle Properties (Pty) Ltd v Khuzwayo and Another (2023-124888) [2025] ZAGPJHC 236 (13 February 2025)
The court found that the respondent's defence based on a pending Rental Housing Tribunal complaint was without merit. The retrospective challenge to rental increases did not constitute a valid unfair practice, especially as the respondent had signed new leases over the years without objection and had failed to pay rental for a year. The respondent's financial circumstances did not warrant protection under the PIE Act, and the Tribunal proceedings did not justify a stay of eviction. The court distinguished the present case from Maphango, noting the absence of systemic unfairness or gentrificat…
Source excerpt
Singyung Investments CC v Metropolitan Municipality of Tshwane and Others (43571/19) [2025] ZAGPPHC 469 (29 January 2025)
The court found that there is a genuine dispute of fact regarding the existence and terms of the alleged Tripartite Lease Agreement between the Applicant and the First Respondent. The evidence presented by both parties, including prior affidavits and conduct, demonstrates conflicting versions that cannot be resolved on the papers alone. The court applied the Plascon-Evans rule, holding that where material disputes of fact exist, final relief cannot be granted in motion proceedings unless the respondent's version is so far-fetched or untenable as to be rejected on the papers, which was not the…
Source excerpt
Naude N.O and Others v Van Der Merwe and Others (A213/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 16 (20 January 2025)
Section 5(5) of the Rental Housing Act does not apply to the termination of a lease for breach where the lease contains a cancellation clause. The respondents remained in occupation without the express or tacit consent of the appellants after October 2019, and the contractual breach clause governed the termination. The Magistrate erred in finding that section 5(5) required one month's notice in these circumstances. The respondents failed to pay rent and did not comply with notices to vacate. The evidence established that the respondents could afford alternative accommodation and did not engag…
Source excerpt
Head and Another v Morris N.O and Others - Appeal (A91/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 343 (28 December 2023)
The High Court upheld an appeal against eviction, finding the appellants were lawful occupiers under an uncancelled lease or month-to-month tenancy, and that the trustees lacked authority to litigate.
Vajeth and Another v Jongwana and Others (19616/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 393 (28 April 2023)
The High Court granted an eviction order after finding the lease was properly cancelled, the occupier had no lawful right to remain, and the defences were unmeritorious.
Kidrogen RF (Pty) Ltd v Nordien and Others (A159/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 9 (30 January 2023)
Appeal against dismissal of an eviction application succeeded. The court granted rectification of the lease, found the respondents unlawful occupiers, and ordered eviction and arrear rental.
Unlocked Properties 18 (PTY) Ltd v Mjikwa and Others (31036/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 670 (7 September 2022)
Eviction application dismissed because the landlord failed to give the statutory one-month notice required to end a periodic lease under the Rental Housing Act.
Essat v Fletcher and Others (40642/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 237 (14 April 2022)
The High Court granted eviction and an interdict, finding the respondents’ lease had ended and their continued occupation was unlawful.
Toproot Property Management (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Mbango and Others (1617/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 777 (30 November 2021)
The court found that the applicant, as a social housing institution, has obligations to its tenants beyond the lease agreement, including compliance with the Social Housing Act and relevant regulations. The applicant failed to provide adequate reconciliations, address allegations of overcharging, or engage meaningfully with the respondents' complaints. The procedural requirements under PIE were not fully met, and the applicant's approach disregarded the respondents' vulnerable status and the broader regulatory framework. The court held that eviction would not be just and equitable at this sta…
Source excerpt
Explore more
