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
Lefeta v Lefeta and Another - Appeal (A31/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 403 (19 October 2023)
High Court appeal in an eviction dispute was upheld because the magistrate failed to apply the motion proceedings rule and the respondents did not establish locus standi.
Witwatersrand Estates Limited v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (90490/2018;70603/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 436 (9 June 2022)
The court found that the applicant, Witwatersrand Estates Limited, acquired knowledge of the administrative action and its reasons by 27 June 2018, when Century's attorneys informed it of the approval and subdivision of the township. The 180-day period prescribed by section 7(1)(b) of PAJA therefore commenced on that date and expired on 24 December 2018. Although the review application was issued on 20 December 2018, it was only served on the City of Johannesburg on 8 January 2019, after the expiry of the 180-day period. No application for extension of time under section 9 of PAJA was made. T…
Source excerpt
Tshiki and Another v Buffalo City Metro Municipality and Another (CA302/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 122 (15 November 2018)
Appeal over alleged conveyancing contract and standing dismissed; the first appellant did not contract personally and the second appellant lacked locus standi.
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Germiston Municipal Retirement Fund (CCT226/15) [2017] ZACC 1; 2017 (6) BCLR 750 (CC) (17 January 2017)
The Constitutional Court held that the interpretation of rule 10.8.1 of the Fund Rules, as previously determined by the Supreme Court of Appeal, remains binding. The new evidence presented by the Municipality was available during earlier litigation and failed to meet the test for admission. The Municipality did not demonstrate that enforcement of the rule impeded its constitutional obligations, nor did it establish that the rule was contrary to public policy. The duty of good faith owed by the Fund's Board is to the Fund and its members, not to the Municipality. The doctrine of res iudicata a…
Source excerpt
Morabane v Letsemeng Local Municipality (5224/2011) [2013] ZAFSHC 176 (17 October 2013)
The court found that the plaintiff's main claim is for specific performance, which does not constitute a 'debt' under the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002, and thus no notice was required. The defendant did not raise the exceptio non adimpleti contractus defence. The High Court retains jurisdiction over contractual claims, even where the CCMA has adjudicated an unfair dismissal claim, as these are distinct causes of action. The CCMA ruling concerned only condonation for late referral and did not address the merits. The defence of res iudicata fai…
Source excerpt
Prinsloo NO and Others v Goldex 15 (Pty) Ltd and Another (243/11) [2012] ZASCA 28; 2014 (5) SA 297 (SCA) (28 March 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that issue estoppel could not bar a fair defence where earlier fraud findings were made on disputed motion papers.
Al-Rawas v Pegasus Energy Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (8088/2006) [2007] ZAWCHC 18 (9 May 2007)
The court discharged an Anton Piller order, finding material non-disclosure, no real apprehension of document destruction, no proper cause against the respondents, and res judicata.
Explore more
