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
Leleu N.O and Another v Numacon (Pty) Limited and Others (19065/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 192 (5 May 2025)
The High Court set aside a valuation insofar as it applied unauthorized discounts in a compulsory share buyout, holding the valuer exceeded his mandate.
P.Y.K v T.S.K (077720/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 241 (7 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to declare that a divorce settlement allowed transfer of a former spouse’s share in immovable property without payment.
Roodt N.O v Registrar of Deeds Pretoria and Others (292/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 856 (29 August 2024)
The court held that a divorce settlement allocated sole ownership of the property to the deceased, ordered the deed amended, and awarded punitive costs against the ex-wife.
Leleu NO and Another v Numacon (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023-100004) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1258 (2 November 2023)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application for payment under a settlement agreement, holding the share price was not yet payable because an arbitration-linked residual dispute remained unresolved.
D.K.M v S.L (2014/9152) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1135 (9 October 2023)
The court found that the first respondent had not satisfactorily carried out his fiduciary duties as referee/liquidator under the settlement agreement. Despite multiple opportunities to explain his conduct, the first respondent failed to provide a proper basis for his actions, particularly regarding advance payments, asset investigations, and preparation of accounts. The court concluded that the first respondent's mandate was completed, making removal unnecessary, but held him liable for costs due to his unsatisfactory performance and lack of diligence. The court further disallowed the first…
Source excerpt
B.J.M v M.A.M [2023] ZAGPPHC 147; 1423/2004 (1 March 2023)
The court found that the applicant's application for variation of the divorce order was fatally defective due to the inordinate delay of 16 years and the absence of any application for condonation or explanation for the delay. The settlement agreement, made an order of court, clearly set out the disposition of the parties' assets, including the respondent's pension benefit under 'all other assets.' The applicant's interpretation of clause 4.1 was rejected as opportunistic and absurd. The principles governing condonation require both a reasonable explanation for delay and prospects of success,…
Source excerpt
L.V.K v L.D.Z (A3047/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 65 (30 January 2023)
The High Court found that the original divorce settlement agreement, incorporated into the decree, expressly excluded the respondent's entitlement to the appellant's pension interest. The agreement was reached after negotiations between legally represented parties and contained clear language regarding the division of assets. The respondent's reliance on case law was misplaced, as those cases involved blanket divisions of joint estates, whereas here the parties expressly agreed otherwise. The court held that no 'good reason' existed under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act or Rule 49 to vary t…
Source excerpt
B v B (A3015/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 903 (10 November 2022)
The High Court remitted a maintenance dispute to the magistrate for evidence on when a spousal maintenance claim was referred, after a divorce settlement time limit was disputed.
Wingate-Pearse v Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service (54038/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 732 (30 September 2022)
The court held that the payment of R336,374.98 under clause 1.1.1 of the 2009 settlement agreement constituted payment towards the tax debt and not security pending the tax appeal. This conclusion was reached by applying the Endumeni principle, which requires interpretation of contracts to consider text, context, and purpose holistically. The court found that the wording of clause 1.1.1 did not refer to 'security', and only subsequent clauses addressed assets provided as security. Extrinsic evidence, including correspondence and prior affidavits, supported SARS's interpretation and was admiss…
Source excerpt
S v S and Others (38649/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 316 (9 May 2022)
The High Court interpreted a divorce settlement clause on net proceeds from a property sale, limited deductions to direct sale costs, and refused contempt relief.
Explore more
