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
Abrahams and Others v De Wet (Appeal) (A249/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 187 (30 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against an eviction order, holding that the appellants failed to prove a valid enrichment lien or lawful possession.
Oosthuizen N.O. and Others v Louw and Others (34151/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 456 (9 May 2014)
The High Court rescinded an earlier ex parte order, held the sale of trust property void, set aside related leases, and ordered eviction and costs.
Steenkamp v GWK Bpk (952/05) [2009] ZANCHC 60 (12 June 2009)
The court found that Steenkamp failed to prove delivery of the sable antelope by traditio longa manu, as there was no evidence that the animals were ever pointed out to him, nor that he was able to exercise physical control over them after the auction. The sale conditions reserved ownership to GWK until full payment, which occurred much later, and there was no indication that the requirements for symbolic delivery were met. Consequently, ownership never passed to Steenkamp, and he did not acquire ownership of the offspring either. GWK, as owner, could not claim a right of retention or act as…
Source excerpt
Kotze v Schoon and Others CA & R 3/02 [2003] ZANCHC 6 (5 September 2003)
The court held that the cause of action for unjust enrichment, based on improvements made to the property, arose wholly within the district of Vryburg. The acts constituting the cause of action were the making of useful and necessary improvements to the insolvent's property by the appellant, which occurred in Vryburg. The sequestration of the insolvent estate and the appointment of executors are procedural events necessary for the pleadings but do not form part of the jurisdictional cause of action. Therefore, the Vryburg Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter against the seco…
Source excerpt
Roux en Andere v Van Rensburg NO (649/94) [1996] ZASCA 54; 1996 (4) SA 271 (SCA); [1996] 3 All SA 499 (A); (28 May 1996)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that under common law, the curator of an insolvent estate is entitled to demand possession of immovable property subject to a retention right, even before the creditor's claim is proven. The retention right does not entitle the holder to indefinitely delay the administration and realization of the estate. Section 47 of the Insolvency Act protects the retentor's rights if possession is surrendered and proper notice is given. The court found no reason to distinguish between movable and immovable assets in this context. The appellants' refusal to surrender posses…
Source excerpt
Minister van Wet en Orde v Erasmus en 'n Ander (204/1990) [1992] ZASCA 100; 1992 (3) SA 819 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 267 (A) [1992] 2 All SA 267 (A) (29 May 1992)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents' retention rights over the vehicles, established through substantial repairs and improvements, survived the involuntary loss of possession caused by police seizure under section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court found that lawful possession under section 31(1)(a) is determined by whether possession would be criminally wrongful, not by whether the possessor is the owner or derives possession from the owner. Since the respondents' possession would not be criminally wrongful, they were entitled to the return of the vehicles. The app…
Source excerpt
Explore more
