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
National Consumer Commission v Ferhaad N.O. and Others (NCT/322185/2024/73(2)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 20 (18 July 2024)
The Tribunal found unfair contract terms in a used-car sale and held the respondents liable for prohibited conduct, but rejected the defect claim. It imposed a R100,000 fine.
Richter N.O. & others v Richter & others (1988/2017) [2021] ZAFSHC 148 (3 June 2021)
The court upheld a special plea of compromise, finding a 6 August 2015 settlement barred trust-related claims about trustee conduct.
Bester and Others NNO v Gouws and Others (851/2019) [2020] ZASCA 174 (17 December 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trustees of the RVAF Trust either had, or could reasonably have acquired, the requisite knowledge to institute claims against the brokers by 23 October 2012. The relevant facts, including the existence and identity of the brokers and the commissions paid, were readily available in the broker files and could have been accessed through reasonable care. The trustees' decision to prioritise other matters did not justify postponing the running of prescription, as a creditor cannot delay prescription through their own conduct. The court found no material mi…
Source excerpt
Ackerman v Collect NO and Others ; Ackerman v Collect NO and Others (234/2017; 1650 /2017) [2020] ZAECGHC 57 (26 May 2020)
The court partly upheld the plaintiff’s claims over farm assets and a loan, dismissed the livestock claim and market-rental counterclaim, and apportioned costs.
Visser N.O and Others v Van Niekerk and Others (5937/16) [2018] ZAFSHC 218 (9 November 2018)
The High Court dismissed a special plea challenging jurisdiction, holding that the Free State court had jurisdiction and that no prejudice was shown.
Hagemann N.O. v Hagemann N.O. and Others (1427/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 129 (10 August 2017)
Summary judgment was refused in a trust loan dispute after the court accepted that the trustees had raised a bona fide defence disputing the alleged oral loans.
Mkonza and Others v Western Crown Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (87264/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1236 (16 November 2016)
The court found that the applicants, as trustees of the Mkonza Family Trust and directors of Xuma Technologies (Pty) Ltd, were properly cited and participated in all relevant proceedings, including the enforcement and contempt applications. They had knowledge of the Murphy and Mohlamonyane orders, instructed legal representatives, and deposed to affidavits. The citation of trustees 'from time to time' is legally sufficient, and the applicants' own conduct amounted to acquiescence to the court's jurisdiction. The requirements for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) or (c) were not met, as the order…
Source excerpt
Swart v Starbuck and Others (20785/2014) [2016] ZASCA 83; 2016 (5) SA 372 (SCA) (30 May 2016)
The court held that the trustees were duly authorised by the Master under s 80bis of the Insolvency Act to sell the immovable properties prior to the second meeting of creditors. Section 82(1) and s 82(8) did not apply, as those provisions govern sales after the second meeting and liability for contraventions thereof. The sale and transfer were valid and enforceable, supported by the suspensive condition in the contracts and subsequent fulfilment of all statutory requirements. The abstract theory of transfer further confirmed the validity of the transfer, regardless of any alleged defects in…
Source excerpt
Van Dyk N.O. en Ander v Vaalharts Boerdery BK (CA&R78/2014) [2015] ZANCHC 30 (7 August 2015)
The High Court upheld an appeal by trustees of a trust, finding the respondent still owed the outstanding balance under an oral agreement and sale arrangement.
Giantos N.O and Others v Giantos and Another (32650/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 157 (31 July 2015)
The court held that the alternative claim by the capital beneficiaries is permissible under the Beningfield exception, as they have a vested interest in the proper administration of the trust. The particulars of claim are not vague and embarrassing, nor do they fail to disclose a cause of action. The lack of detailed particulars does not prejudice the defendant, who can request further particulars for trial. The exceptions raised by the first defendant are dismissed, as the pleadings are sufficient for the defendant to respond and any excessive claim will simply be disallowed at trial.
Source excerpt
Explore more
