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
Meiring v RC Auto and Others (4048/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 31 (7 February 2025)
The court allowed cancellation of a used vehicle sale after finding undisclosed collision history and serious latent defects that defeated the vehicle’s intended use.
Anioma Property (Pty) Ltd v DMFT Property Developers and Others (49230/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 818 (8 March 2023)
The High Court ordered the purchaser to pay transfer costs and complete transfer of the property, rejecting a defence based on alleged non-disclosure of a caveat.
Anioma Property (Pty) Ltd v DMFT Property Developers and Others (49230/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 209 (7 March 2023)
The court found that the applicant was not under a legal duty to disclose the precise nature of the caveat, as the information was not within its exclusive knowledge and was readily accessible through a deeds search. The language of clause 20.1 was, at best, unclear, but a reasonable purchaser should have sought clarification. The existence of the caveat did not affect the title deed or prevent transfer, and the property was not hijacked. Therefore, the non-disclosure was not material and did not invalidate the contract. The respondent's refusal to pay transfer costs constituted repudiation,…
Source excerpt
Peaceful v Hepburn and Another; In re: Hepburn and Another v Peaceful (2016/00082) [2016] ZAGPJHC 119 (26 May 2016)
The High Court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim in a property defects dispute, holding that the pleading disclosed a cause of action.
Henen's Meat Market (Pty) Ltd v Solly's Catering Equipment CC (CA 269/2009) [2010] ZAECGHC 43 (3 June 2010)
The court found the appellant's version more probable and credible. The evidence established that only seven fridges were sold, not ten, and that the respondent paid only R10,000 in cash. The respondent's claim of having paid an additional R10,000 by cheque was rejected as improbable and unsupported by documentary evidence. The cheque for R30,000 was dishonoured, and the respondent failed to pay the balance. Delivery of the fridges occurred and ownership passed to the respondent upon conclusion of the agreement. The Magistrate erred by failing to resolve the factual disputes and granting abso…
Source excerpt
Van Der Westhuizen v Arnold (414/2000) [2002] ZASCA 82; [2002] 4 All SA 331 (SCA); 2002 (6) SA 453 (SCA) (29 August 2002)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a general no-warranties clause did not clearly exclude the implied warranty against eviction in a vehicle sale.
Explore more
