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
Di Trapani v WU (14359/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 634 (25 June 2025)
High Court judgment on tenant arrears, a disputed right of first refusal, and claims for compensation for improvements to leased property.
Tenants of the Eastern Cape Development Corporation v Eastern Cape Development Corporation (EL1788/2023) [2025] ZAECELLC 6 (15 April 2025)
The court found that while the tenants shared the status of being occupiers of the respondent’s properties and all alleged a right of first refusal, the remaining claims were highly individualized, relating to maintenance, improvements, defects, and arrear rental. The absence of a draft pleading and the lack of detail in the affidavits rendered the application procedurally deficient. The respondent had already undertaken to afford tenants a right of first refusal, and any compensation claims would require individualized factual determinations. The court held that certification would not provi…
Source excerpt
CTI Coldstore Pty Ltd v Chilleweni Cold Storage Pty Ltd (2025/028819) [2025] ZAGPJHC 328 (27 March 2025)
The High Court held that a right of first refusal in a sublease was not triggered because the lessor intended to use the premises itself, not re-lease them.
Godwill and Others v Van Rijswijk N.O and Others (10624/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 42 (11 February 2025)
The High Court refused to stay an eviction order pending rescission, finding the urgent application was self-created, unsupported on the merits, and an abuse of process.
McGlashan N.O and Others v Fhulufhelo and Another (2023/042194) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1017 (11 October 2024)
The High Court granted an eviction order, finding no valid defence and setting 31 December 2024 as the vacate date. It awarded ordinary, not punitive, costs.
Khanyisela Mineral Traders (Pty) Ltd v EJ Resources (Pty) Ltd (2024/069252) [2024] ZAGPJHC 754 (12 August 2024)
The applicant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, as any loss suffered from not obtaining coal could be compensated by damages, which are readily quantifiable. The balance of convenience favours the respondent, as granting the interdict would effectively force the respondent to sell coal to the applicant under the contract, potentially pre-empting the final determination of the dispute and causing undue hardship to the respondent. The applicant did not demonstrate the absence of an adequate alternative remedy, as damages are available. Although the applicant est…
Source excerpt
Sheffield Industries CC v Carol Coetzee and Associates Inc and Another (23145/21) [2024] ZAGPPHC 801 (12 August 2024)
The High Court held that the seller repudiated a property sale contract by selling the land to a third party without first offering it to the buyer.
Pick'n Pay Retailers Proprietary Limited v Northern Suburbs Supermarket Proprietary Limited (2024/083061) [2024] ZAGPJHC 765 (2 August 2024)
The High Court granted Pick n Pay urgent perfection of a general notarial covering bond against a distressed franchisee and struck the respondent’s counter-application.
Dey Street Properties (Pty) Ltd v Wilrus Trading CC and Another (A7/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1290 (29 July 2024)
The court held that the counter application and main application were factually and legally interrelated, and that deciding the counter application separately risked inconsistent and unjust outcomes. The relief granted in the counter application, including rectification of the lease and enforcement of the right of first refusal, depended on whether the lease agreement had been validly cancelled—a matter central to the main application. The court found that procedural objections raised by the respondent, including late filing and failure to furnish security for costs, did not result in real pr…
Source excerpt
Rossouw Meat Property Investments (Pty) Ltd (2019/130471/07) v Friqur 142 BK (2009/185287/23 and Others (31228/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 650 (5 August 2021)
The court found that the lease agreement, which grants the applicant a right of first refusal, does not require ministerial consent as there is no intended subdivision of agricultural land. The statutory prohibition applies only to subdivision, not to the sale or lease of the entire property. The applicant's right of first refusal is valid and enforceable over the whole property. The urgency of the application was justified due to the uncertainty and imminent threat to the applicant's rights. The points in limine raised by the third respondent regarding the validity of the lease agreement wer…
Source excerpt
Explore more
