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
ABSA Bank Limited v Laduma Foods and Others (3083/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 35 (11 February 2025)
The High Court granted summary judgment for ABSA against all defendants after finding the plea was a bare denial and the offered security was insufficient.
Man Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd t/a Man Financial Services v Segaole Trucking and Transport (Pty) Ltd and Others (39/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 187 (11 July 2024)
Summary judgment was granted confirming cancellation of an instalment sale agreement, ordering return of listed vehicles and trailers, and awarding costs.
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Matjhabeng Local Municipality and Others (3367/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 81 (17 March 2023)
Contempt application dismissed after the court found the municipality’s partial compliance was not wilful or mala fide and that the consent order’s own remedy applied.
Hill v Registrar (38792/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 29 (18 February 2014)
The High Court dismissed a review of the Registrar’s handling of security for summary judgment, holding the discretion was properly exercised.
Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Department of Transport and Others (44095/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 239 (12 August 2013)
The court granted Tasima’s Rule 49(11) application, allowing its judgment to be executed pending appeal and dispensing with security.
Meyer NO and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd (70189/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 44 (23 February 2012)
The court held that a second security furnished under Rule 32(3)(a) after the first was rejected by the registrar was not an irregular step under Rule 30.
Pooosh Cellular (Pty) Ltd v Italk Cellular (Pty) Ltd and Others (2009/48153) [2010] ZAGPJHC 40 (24 May 2010)
High Court refused leave to execute pending appeal, but ordered respondents to retain R10 million as security for possible damages and costs.
Pretorius v Wessels and Others (1064/08) [2008] ZANWHC 2 (12 June 2008)
The applicant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondents were disposing of assets with the intention of frustrating his claim. The respondents provided credible undertakings not to dispose of the remaining farms and demonstrated that sufficient assets remained to satisfy any judgment. The sales in question were bona fide, at market value, and not to related parties. The applicant's fears were not substantiated by evidence, and the court found no mala fide conduct. Accordingly, the interim interdict was not confirmed and was discharged.
Source excerpt
Tsung and Another v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd. and Another (079/05) [2006] ZASCA 28; 2006 (4) SA 177 (SCA); [2013] 2 All SA 556 (SCA) (23 March 2006)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a peregrine defendant's late consent to jurisdiction, given after attachment of property to found or confirm jurisdiction, cannot undo the attachment. The attachment serves not only to establish jurisdiction but also to provide security for the plaintiff, ensuring the enforceability of any judgment obtained. Allowing late consent to invalidate the attachment would frustrate the incolae's ability to execute against the attached property and undermine the established objectives of the attachment procedure. The court found no policy or fairness reason to dep…
Source excerpt
Explore more
