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
Petersen N.O and Others v Kgopelang Medical Services Inc (2023/125881) [2025] ZAGPJHC 232 (6 March 2025)
The High Court granted summary judgment for unpaid rent, finding the defendant’s representative’s name, designation and initials formed a valid signature on the lease offer.
Versitrade 540 (Pty) Ltd t/a Sutherland Transport v Global Telematics South Africa (Pty) Ltd (CA 248/2010) [2011] ZAECGHC 60 (27 October 2011)
The High Court held that a binding contract existed despite an unsigned signature block, because the documents and the parties’ conduct showed clear consensus.
Just Names Properties 11 CC and Another v Fourie and Others (324/06) [2007] ZASCA 126; [2007] SCA 126 (RSA); [2008] 2 All SA 487 (SCA); 2008 (1) SA 343 (SCA) (28 September 2007)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the agreement for the sale of immovable property did not comply with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 because the sellers signed two blank pages, which were subsequently completed. The Act requires that the deed of alienation be signed by the parties in its completed form, signifying their assent to the terms as written. The argument that the amendment constituted a counter-offer was rejected, as the evidence showed that the purchaser remained the offeror and the sellers did not make a written counter-offer. The invalidity of the agre…
Source excerpt
Harpur NO v Govindamall and Another (730/91) [1993] ZASCA 110; 1993 (4) SA 751 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 582 (A) (6 September 1993)
The majority of the court held that initialling by witnesses does not constitute a valid signature for the purposes of section 2(1)(a) of the Wills Act, 7 of 1953, as it stood prior to the 1992 amendment. The court reasoned that the ordinary, popular meaning of 'sign' and 'signature' does not include initialling, and that the legislature, by distinguishing between marks and signatures, intended to exclude initialling by witnesses. The requirement for signatures is a safeguard against fraud and uncertainty, and initialling does not provide the same level of identification as a signature. The c…
Source excerpt
Explore more
