South Africa Case Law

Bethlehem and Others v Zwiegers and Another (43334/2018)

Bethlehem and Others v Zwiegers and Another (43334/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 112 (7 May 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

43334/2018

Judge

Lapan

The court found that the applicants, having acquired the property at a sale in execution and complied with all conditions of sale, became the 'persons in charge' entitled to possession prior to registration of ownership. The respondent's claim that the property was res litigiosa failed, as the doctrine does not prevent transfer but only subjects the transferee's rights to the outcome of pending litigation. The respondent's improvement lien defence was rejected because he was not in possession of the property when improvements were made, a prerequisite for asserting such a lien. Furthermore, t…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Res Litigiosa
• Improvement Lien
• Standing Of Person In Charge
• Enrichment Claims

Ilkley Manor (Pty) Ltd v Trustees of the Bush Willow Trust (T 2235/98); Ilkley Manor (Pty) Ltd v Trustees of the Bush Willow Trust (T 2235/98) (40101/2017; 40930/2018)

Ilkley Manor (Pty) Ltd v Trustees of the Bush Willow Trust (T 2235/98); Ilkley Manor (Pty) Ltd v Trustees of the Bush Willow Trust (T 2235/98) (40101/2017; 40930/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 508 (11 December 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

40101/2017; 40930/2018

Judge

Vally

The court held that an exception cannot be taken against a Rule 13 notice, as it is not a pleading within the meaning of Rule 23(1). The exception against the particulars of claim (POC2) was dismissed because the plaintiff had pleaded all necessary facts to sustain its cause of action, and the principle of res litigiosa did not preclude the plaintiff from vindicating its rights at trial. The court found that the exceptions were without merit, especially as the same arguments had already been rejected in a previous judgment by Mashile J. The focus should now be on the parties pleading to the m…

Source excerpt

• Exception Procedure
• Res Litigiosa
• Pleading Requirements
• Transfer Of Property

Raleni v Eastern Cape Development Corporation (3979/2018)

Raleni v Eastern Cape Development Corporation (3979/2018) [2018] ZAECMHC 73 (30 October 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3979/2018

Judge

B Majiki

The court found that the applicant occupied the property through Hlangwana and was therefore covered by the eviction order issued against Hlangwana and all those claiming title through her. The respondent complied with PIE by serving the required notices, and the applicant failed to provide sufficient information regarding his occupation or the Department of Public Works' authority to allocate the property. The applicant had an alternative remedy to challenge the eviction proceedings in the magistrate's court but failed to do so. The eviction was executed pursuant to a valid court order, and…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Eviction
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Section 26 Constitution
• Urgent Interdict
• Res Litigiosa
• Mandament Van Spolie

Jamieson and Another v Loderf (Pty) Ltd and Others (A595/2011)

Jamieson and Another v Loderf (Pty) Ltd and Others (A595/2011) [2015] ZAWCHC 18 (20 February 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A595/2011

Judges

Bozalek, Rogers, Dolamo

The court found that the version advanced by Loderf regarding voluntary surrender of possession was not credible and should have been rejected on the papers. The Jamiesons were entitled to spoliation relief at the time of the application and judgment in the court a quo. However, subsequent sale and transfer of the flats to innocent third parties without notice of the dispute rendered restoration of possession impossible. The spoliation remedy does not extend to innocent third parties who acquire possession in good faith. The court substituted the order of the court a quo with a declaration th…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Genuine Dispute Of Fact
• Builder Lien
• Restoration Of Possession
• Res Litigiosa
• Doctrine Of Notice

Muller v Burger and Others (316/2014)

Muller v Burger and Others (316/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 110 (7 August 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

316/2014

Judge

Kruger, R

The court found that the funds deposited in trust with the first respondent originated from the partnership and were intended to be held pending the resolution of disputes regarding partnership accounting and dissolution. The applicant voluntarily transferred the funds to the first respondent, who was acting for the other partners, and did not establish a clear entitlement to immediate payment. The ongoing High Court action regarding partnership accounting remains unresolved, and the applicant is not without remedy, as he can pursue the main action to finality. The court accepted the responde…

Source excerpt

• Trust Money Dispute
• Partnership Dissolution
• Costs Order
• Res Litigiosa
• Delay In Litigation

Tayob N.O. and Others v Mamabolo and Others (27591/2012)

Tayob N.O. and Others v Mamabolo and Others (27591/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 26 (19 February 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27591/2012

Judge

D D Mogotsi

The High Court referred an opposed eviction application to trial because material disputes of fact, title and lease issues could not be resolved on affidavit.

• Eviction
• Lease Agreement
• Huur Gaat Voor Koop
• Dispute Of Fact
• Ownership
• Res Litigiosa