South Africa Case Law

Harrison v Hattingh (4151/2022)

Harrison v Hattingh (4151/2022) [2024] ZAECMKHC 75 (25 June 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

4151/2022

Judge

GH Bloem

The court found that the sale agreement was unenforceable due to the statutory prohibition on subdivision of agricultural land without ministerial consent. The lease agreement was valid, and the plaintiff paid R157,500 in terms of the lease, but only R136,000 was due as rental for the period of occupation. The plaintiff was entitled to repayment of the excess R21,500, including the deposit. Regarding improvements, the plaintiff incurred necessary expenses to make the property accessible and habitable, and the defendant was enriched at her expense without legal cause. The plaintiff was entitle…

Source excerpt

• Unenforceable Contract
• Enrichment Claim
• Lease Agreement
• Subdivision Of Agricultural Land Act
• Improvements To Property

Nhlapho v Langa (D1943/2016)

Nhlapho v Langa (D1943/2016) [2022] ZAKZDHC 32 (9 September 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D1943/2016

Judge

Mlaba

The High Court found an oral sale of land unenforceable, rejected the plaintiff’s rental and levy claim, and ordered restitution of R1 million with interest.

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Unenforceable Contract
• Unjust Enrichment
• Set Off
• Occupational Rent
• Oral-sale-of-land

Maloko and Another v Mosimane and Others (1843/2011)

Maloko and Another v Mosimane and Others (1843/2011) [2013] ZANWHC 8 (31 January 2013)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1843/2011

Judge

Gura

The court held that the tribal land sale was void for lack of Traditional Council approval, but refused eviction and ordered each party to pay its own costs.

• Customary Land Rights
• Invalid Sale Agreement
• Traditional Council Authority
• Eviction
• Unenforceable Contract
• Tribal Land Disposal

Sunshine Records (Pty) Ltd. v Frohling and Others (383/84/av)

Sunshine Records (Pty) Ltd. v Frohling and Others (383/84/av) [1986] ZASCA 153; [1990] 1 All SA 8 (A) (28 November 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

383/84/av

Judges

Grosskopf, Corbett, Hoexter, Trengove, Nestadt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the recording contract imposed extreme and serious restraints on the respondents' freedom to pursue their profession, with no reciprocal obligation on the appellant to release or exploit their recordings. The contract granted the appellant complete control over the respondents' professional activities and the exploitation of their recorded works, while the respondents were prohibited from recording elsewhere and received no guarantee of remuneration unless the appellant chose to release their recordings. The court found that such a contract was unenforcea…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Unenforceable Contract
• Recording Contract
• Royalty Dispute
• Management Agreement