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
Raimondi N.O and Another v Kruger and Others (Reasons) (22271.2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 257 (9 September 2024)
The High Court ordered eviction of occupants from a Gordon’s Bay property, finding no valid sale agreement, no lawful right to remain, and no proven retention lien.
Wood v Nadonix (Pty) Ltd and Others (048177/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 663 (9 July 2024)
The applicant is the registered owner of the property and has locus standi to bring the eviction application. The respondents occupied the property under a cancelled agreement and failed to pay occupational rent or purchase price. Their assertion of fraud and forgery renders the agreement void ab initio, leaving them without any contractual right to occupy. The respondents are therefore unlawful occupiers under PIE. The procedural and substantive requirements of PIE have been met, and the respondents have not provided sufficient evidence of vulnerability or inability to secure alternative acc…
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.
Spring Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd t/a No Finance Cars v F & H Motors CC (1713/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 341 (23 August 2023)
The court found that the applicant is the lawful owner of the vehicle and has been deprived of possession and potential rental income due to the respondent's retention. The respondent's lien arises from repairs contracted by Mr Mmolaoa, who has abandoned the vehicle and is not a party to these proceedings. The applicant provided adequate security for the respondent's claim, and the parties agreed that the security would be held by the respondent's attorney. The court exercised its discretion to order delivery of the vehicle to the applicant against provision of security, finding that the resp…
Source excerpt
Explore more
