South Africa Case Law

Kaps and Others v Seripe and Others (Appeal) (A137/2024)

Kaps and Others v Seripe and Others (Appeal) (A137/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 228 (15 May 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A137/2024

Judges

Allie, Da Silva Salie, Ralarala

The court held that the allotment of 100% of the shares to the first appellant at incorporation was valid and not contrary to the Companies Act, nor was it a breach of any express or implied agreement, as no such agreement was proven. The respondents failed to provide evidence of a contractual or fiduciary obligation prohibiting the appellant from allotting shares solely to himself. The misrepresentation of the company’s B-BBEE Level 2 status in February 2018, while unlawful and sanctionable, did not affect the validity of the earlier share allocation, as the two events were separate and dist…

Source excerpt

• Share Allotment
• Companies Act Compliance
• B Bbee Misrepresentation
• Fronting Practices
• Tacit Agreement
• Costs Order

Body Corporate The Straight v Katisi (2023/031774)

Body Corporate The Straight v Katisi (2023/031774) [2025] ZAGPJHC 2 (3 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/031774

Judge

Windell

The court found that the Body Corporate is entitled to judgment for arrear levies and electricity charges, as the respondent conceded indebtedness and failed to raise a valid defence. The scheme's rules and resolutions, passed by the trustees, bind all unit owners, including the respondent, and authorise recovery of arrears and disconnection of electricity for non-payment. The Body Corporate demonstrated a tacit agreement with the respondent upon his purchase of the unit, obliging him to comply with scheme rules. The applicant followed due process, including notice of consequences for non-pay…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act
• Arrear Levies
• Electricity Disconnection
• Tacit Agreement
• Interest On Arrears

Moladora Trust v Mereki and Others (189/2023)

Moladora Trust v Mereki and Others (189/2023) [2024] ZASCA 37; 2024 (5) SA 51 (SCA) (3 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

189/2023

Judges

Ponnan, Matojane, Weiner

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a Land Claims Court order after finding no factual basis for tacit consent to graze livestock on the farm.

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Tacit Agreement
• Grazing Rights
• Occupier Consent
• Extension-of-security-of-tenure-act
• Tacit-agreement

Z.M.V.D.M obo Three Minor Children v Road Accident Fund (25411/2017)

Z.M.V.D.M obo Three Minor Children v Road Accident Fund (25411/2017) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1828 (16 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

25411/2017

Judge

R G Tolmay

The court found that, although the foster children were not biologically related to the deceased nor formally in his foster care, the deceased and the plaintiff had formed a permanent life partnership and assumed full responsibility for the children for over six years. The evidence established a tacit agreement that the deceased would maintain both the plaintiff and the children. The obligations arising from this relationship are worthy of legal protection, especially in light of the constitutional imperative to protect the best interests of children. The court held that the Road Accident Fun…

Source excerpt

• Loss Of Support
• Road Accident Fund Liability
• Foster Care
• Tacit Agreement
• Constitutional Rights Of Children

Hyprop Investments Limited v A & M Investments (Pty) Ltd (21528/2021)

Hyprop Investments Limited v A & M Investments (Pty) Ltd (21528/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 266 (29 December 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21528/2021

Judge

A De Wet

High Court eviction case over a commercial kiosk lease held to be fixed term, not month-to-month. The occupant was ordered to vacate, with condonation granted.

• Eviction
• Fixed Term Lease
• Tacit Agreement
• Reasonable Notice
• Costs Order
• Fixed-term-lease

Moladora Trust v Mereki and Others (LCC70/2022)

Moladora Trust v Mereki and Others (LCC70/2022) [2022] ZALCC 32; 2023 (3) SA 209 (LCC) (11 November 2022)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC70/2022

Judge

SJ Cowen

The Court found that, although grazing rights for ESTA occupiers are personal and derive from consent, the respondents had acquired tacit consent to graze cattle on the farm after their mother's death. This was inferred from their continued open residence and use of the land for grazing over several years without objection from the applicant, and the presumption of consent under section 3(4) of ESTA. The Court held that once such consent is established, the right to graze cattle forms part of the tenure protected by ESTA and is subject to its procedural safeguards. The applicant failed to com…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Eviction Proceedings
• Consent To Graze Livestock
• Security Of Tenure
• Tacit Agreement
• Constitutional Right To Dignity

HPROP (PTY) Ltd v Venn and Muller Incorporated (53599/2021)

HPROP (PTY) Ltd v Venn and Muller Incorporated (53599/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 879 (9 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

53599/2021

Judge

H Constantinides

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a liquidated claim suitable for summary judgment, as there were conflicting versions regarding the rental amount and errors in the calculations. The respondent placed both the form and terms of the lease agreement into dispute, raising triable issues regarding whether a tacit or oral agreement existed and the precise terms thereof. The deponent to the summary judgment affidavit did not demonstrate sufficient personal knowledge of the facts, particularly regarding the alleged tacit agreements. The court held that the disputes regarding the…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Tacit Agreement
• Lease Dispute
• Liquidated Claim
• Jurisdiction
• Waiver Clause

Pereira v Griffith (34755/2021)

Pereira v Griffith (34755/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 727 (29 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

34755/2021

Judge

Adams

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim sufficiently pleaded the existence of a universal partnership, including the pooling of resources and compliance with obligations. The distinction between tacit and implied agreement was not material to the exception, and the facts pleaded were adequate to support the cause of action. The defendant's complaints regarding vagueness and failure to plead compliance were unfounded, as the particulars provided full details of the assets pooled and the conduct relied upon. The exception was therefore ill-advised and dismissed. Costs were awa…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Universal Partnership
• Tacit Agreement
• Pleading Requirements

Vurhonga Shuttle Services and Another v Afgri Poultry (Pty) Ltd t/a Daybreak Farms (50547/21)

Vurhonga Shuttle Services and Another v Afgri Poultry (Pty) Ltd t/a Daybreak Farms (50547/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 639 (2 September 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50547/21

Judge

de Vos

The High Court held that the shuttle-payment contract was replaced by a tacit agreement to pay per person, and dismissed the application with costs.

• Contractual Interpretation
• Tacit Agreement
• Specific Performance
• Interdict
• Termination Of Contract
• Tacit-agreement

Metropol Consulting (Pty) Ltd v City of Jhb Metropolitan Municipality and Another (21725/2018)

Metropol Consulting (Pty) Ltd v City of Jhb Metropolitan Municipality and Another (21725/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 207 (11 June 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21725/2018

Judge

I Opperman

The court found that the refusal of the amendment was not appealable as it did not constitute a definitive finding of law and left the plaintiff free to pursue alternative pleaded cases. The proposed amendment failed to disclose a legal and enforceable cause of action, as the alleged tacit agreement was illegal ex facie the declaration and neither policy considerations nor entitlement to just and equitable relief formed part of the pleaded case. The court held that illegality may be determined from the declaration alone and that it is the duty of the court to raise such issues mero motu. Even…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Appealability
• Illegality Of Contract
• Tacit Agreement