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
Kaymak and Another v Ralushai (2016/21096) [2023] ZAGPJHC 60 (26 January 2023)
The High Court refused to make a settlement agreement an order of court because the clause restraining defamatory statements was too vague to enforce.
Snowy Owl Properties 284 (Pty) Ltd v Mziki Share Block Limited (886/2021) [2023] ZASCA 2 (19 January 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the arbitration award does not sanction illegal activities, as it pertains to the reinstatement and maintenance of existing servitude roads, not the creation of new roads. The environmental objections raised by the appellant were considered and rejected during arbitration, and the evidence presented before the high court was merely a repetition of arguments already decided. The award is sufficiently clear, referencing documents and inspections attended by both parties, and the appellant is fully aware of the roads and obligations. Maintenance duties under…
Source excerpt
Mjoli v Greys Pass Farm (Pty) Ltd (LCC45R/2018) [2019] ZALCC 25 (15 October 2019)
Leave to appeal was granted in a Land Claims Court matter about whether a relocation order under ESTA amounted to an eviction reviewable under section 19(3).
Botha and Another v Jamanzi Live Line (Pty) Limited and Others (3453/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 899 (29 November 2018)
Contempt application dismissed: the court held that the money order was not enforceable by contempt, and the remaining order was too vague.
Amatole District Municipality and Others v King William's Town Taxi Management and Others (ECJ 2004/011) [2004] ZAECHC 18 (5 July 2004)
The court found that the application was urgent but did not establish sufficient grounds for the relief sought. The applicants had standing to litigate in the public interest, but the South African Police Service was not properly before the court due to lack of proper authority. The contract between the first and eighth respondents, while poorly drafted, was not unlawful or contrary to public policy. Many of the orders sought were too vague to be enforceable, and the applicants failed to prove any unlawful conduct by the eighth respondent that would justify an interdict. The applicants also l…
Source excerpt
Explore more
