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
Martin Boikanyo Pitsie NO and Another v Paul Sepopi Ditshego (031023/2014) [2023] ZAGPJHC 661 (7 June 2023)
The High Court refused to dismiss a long-dormant property dispute, finding inordinate delay but no sufficiently serious prejudice to justify dismissal.
Morewane N.O. v Rampoto N.O. and Others (2020/8534) [2022] ZAGPJHC 625 (29 August 2022)
The court found that South African law recognizes the validity of a donation inter vivos of property not owned by the donor at the time of donation, provided the donor subsequently acquires ownership and can effect transfer. The authorities cited, including Voet, Grotius, Van Leeuwen, and case law, support the principle that such donations are not invalid. The respondent's argument that the property vested in Joseph Rampoto's estate was rejected due to lack of evidence and the fact that the deed of transfer was in Jacob Rampoto's name. The court distinguished the McBride v Jooste dictum, hold…
Source excerpt
Herbert N.O. and Others v Senqu Municipality and Others (742/2020) [2021] ZASCA 177 (17 December 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 3(1) of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act must be interpreted purposively, in light of its legislative history and constitutional context. The Act was enacted to provide restitution to those disadvantaged by apartheid-era laws, particularly Black families whose land rights were reduced to tenuous tenure. The TEBA Property Trust and its predecessors were not disadvantaged by such laws; rather, they benefited from the Native Trust and Land Act and were not precluded from acquiring full title. The Trust's argument based solely on the statutory…
Source excerpt
Ozoh v Dladla and Others (19/31789) [2021] ZAGPJHC 773 (11 August 2021)
The applicant's mother held a regulation 7 permit, which was lawfully terminated by the Municipality in 1981. Thereafter, the property was allocated to the first respondent, who purchased it under the 99-year leasehold scheme and was later issued a full title deed in accordance with statutory provisions. At the time of her death, the applicant's mother had no legal right or interest in the property, and it did not form part of her estate. The applicant's claim is therefore without merit, as she cannot assert rights over property her mother did not own or have a legal interest in. The process…
Source excerpt
Herbert NO and Others v Senqu Municipality and Others (2457/2016) [2020] ZAECGHC 45 (19 May 2020)
The court found that the Trust and its predecessors were not the targets of racially discriminatory legislation and did not suffer dispossession or denial of access to land. Instead, they benefited from the system, occupying land for profit and facilitating migrant labour. The purpose of the Upgrading Act, as established by Constitutional Court authority, is to provide secure tenure and redress to Africans disadvantaged by apartheid-era laws. The Trust does not fall within the class of persons for whom the Act was enacted. Accordingly, the Trust is not entitled to claim conversion of its perm…
Source excerpt
Herbert NO and Others v Senqu Municipality and Others (2457/2016) [2018] ZAECGHC 92; [2018] 4 All SA 677 (ECG) (11 October 2018)
The court found that section 1 of the Land Affairs General Amendment Act 61 of 1998 and section 25A of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act 112 of 1991, to the extent that they exclude section 3 from application throughout the Republic, are inconsistent with sections 9 and 25 of the Constitution. The exclusionary provision creates arbitrary and unfair discrimination between holders of different categories of land tenure rights, lacks any rational basis, and perpetuates apartheid-era territorial distinctions. The exclusion also results in arbitrary deprivation of property, as the Trust and…
Source excerpt
Legoale and Others v Legoale and Others (14206/03) [2005] ZAGPHC 49 (29 April 2005)
The court found that the transfer of the site permit and subsequent registration of ownership in favour of Dr Mammule Esther Legoale was valid and supported by expert handwriting evidence confirming the authenticity of Mrs Roseline Legoale's signature. The applicants failed to prove forgery or fraud. The 2000 will, even if valid, could not override the registered ownership established under the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act. The application for co-ownership was dismissed, and the eviction of the first applicant from Erf 2495 was granted. No order as to costs was made, reflecting the com…
Source excerpt
Explore more
