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
Ten Napel and Another v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (44339/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 566 (30 September 2021)
The High Court ordered demolition of an unlawful multi-dwelling structure built without approved plans or rezoning, and awarded costs against the respondent.
Chevron South Africa (Proprietary) Limited v Ebisu Dealers CC and Others (8523/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 91 (14 March 2019)
The High Court held respondents in contempt for breaching an interdict over a servitude and granted final interdictory relief enforcing the restrictive title condition.
Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality v Georgiou t/a Georgiou Guesthouse and Spa and Others (1663/2015) [2015] ZAECPEHC 59; [2016] 1 All SA 607 (ECP); 2016 (2) SA 394 (ECP) (20 October 2015)
The court held that the conditional re-zoning of the properties, subject to the removal of restrictive conditions of title, was unlawful. The purported condition was not a lawful condition under section 42 of LUPO, as it did not relate to land use restrictions or development parameters but merely restated the legal position that restrictive conditions take precedence. The local authority is bound to consider and enforce restrictive conditions and cannot circumvent them by granting conditional re-zoning. The special consent granted to operate a licensed hotel and chapel was also unlawful, as n…
Source excerpt
Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Rasalanavho and Others (47616/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 538 (10 June 2015)
The High Court ordered re-transfer of a residential erf after buyers failed to build within the extended period set by a restrictive title condition.
Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality v Harlech-Jones NO and Others (2243/08) [2010] ZAECPEHC 2 (28 January 2010)
The court held that a title-deed restrictive condition limited the property to residential use and interdicted the respondents from operating a restaurant there.
Explore more
