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
Concargo (Pty) Ltd v Johnson and Others (A 187/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 107 (17 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed Concargo’s appeal over restitution of R1 million paid under an oral agreement for a 5% shareholding.
Bridge Debt (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mothibi (CA&R34/23) [2025] ZANCHC 24 (14 March 2025)
The appeal court found that the magistrate correctly rescinded the judgment and emoluments attachment order as the Kimberley court lacked jurisdiction, given the respondent's residence and employment in Johannesburg and the consent to jurisdiction specifying Pretoria. The court held that all benefits obtained by Bridge Debt under the void judgment are void ab initio and restitution must be effected. However, the appellant, Flemix & Associates Incorporated Attorneys, did not receive rescindable benefits and cannot be held jointly and severally liable for restitution. The cost order against the…
Source excerpt
Aposroliese Geloof Sending Van Suid Afrika v Chayah Investments (Pty) Ltd (2023/112776) [2024] ZAGPJHC 673 (26 July 2024)
The High Court granted ejectment against an occupier after a failed property sale, holding unresolved restitution issues did not bar eviction and no enrichment lien was shown.
Bondev Midrand (Pty) Ltd v Van Blerk and Others (909/2014) [2024] ZAGPPHC 704 (12 July 2024)
The court found that Bondev's right to claim retransfer of the property under condition B had prescribed on 26 December 2010, as it was a personal right constituting a debt under the Prescription Act, and no valid extension of the prescriptive period occurred. Consequently, Bondev could not enforce retransfer. However, Bondev established a claim for restitution based on enrichment, as it had paid the original purchase price and transfer expenses without legal ground. The court held that Bondev was entitled to payment of R390,000.00 from Van Blerk before cancellation of the title deed and rest…
Source excerpt
K.N v N.Z and Another (2019/33708) [2024] ZAGPJHC 440 (10 May 2024)
The court held that R430 000 given to the defendants was not a gift, but money meant to buy property in the plaintiff’s name. The special plea of prescription failed.
Anderson and Another v Standard Bank of SA Limited and Others (986/2019) [2024] ZAECQBHC 11 (13 February 2024)
The court found that the applicants did not knowingly intend to transfer ownership of their property to the second respondent. The evidence showed they were misled by AMS and its agents into believing the documents were for securing a loan and safekeeping, not for sale. The respondents' denials were speculative and did not raise a genuine dispute of fact. The transfer was induced by fraud, rendering the sale and related agreements null and void. The court held that caveat subscriptor does not apply in cases of fraud, and the vindicatory claim for restitution is not subject to prescription und…
Source excerpt
Aheer and Another v Govender (7098/2020P; 7136/2020P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 7 (8 February 2024)
The High Court ordered repayment to two plaintiffs after finding the defendant had used threats and misrepresentation to extract money and other benefits.
Panel to Panel Autorbody (Pty) Ltd v Capital Propfund (Pty) Ltd (2020/28981) [2024] ZAGPJHC 116 (7 February 2024)
The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim in a lease dispute, finding insufficient factual averments for refund claims tied to a deposit, tenant installation and rental.
Wafai and Others v SA Casual Dining Concepts (Pty) Ltd and Another (7609/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 333 (6 December 2023)
The High Court dismissed summary judgment in a franchise dispute, finding the respondent had a bona fide defence that no contract existed because of a fundamental misrepresentation.
City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v LAPA Property Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (2018/40589) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1327 (13 November 2023)
The High Court held that the municipal sale agreement was validly cancelled, the City may recover the properties, but only on repayment of the purchase price and discharge of the bond.
Explore more
