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
Gerntholtz and Others v Pieterse N.O and Others (3958/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 51 (18 February 2025)
The High Court held a testamentary bequest to Boerelegioen-related entities void for vagueness and contrary to public policy, and ordered intestate succession.
G.J.C v S.M.C (2015/2020) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 15 (3 March 2023)
The court found that the antenuptial contract, when interpreted in context and considering the parties' conduct and understanding, clearly reflected their intention to marry out of community of property with accrual, excluding the assets listed in clause 4 from the accrual calculation. The failure to record the assets in clause 5 and the repetition of values was a drafting error, but did not render the contract void or ambiguous to the extent of unenforceability. The contract was not open to rectification, as it accurately reflected the parties' true intention. The defendant's counter-claim f…
Source excerpt
Koster v Industrial Zone Limited and Others (A5066/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 981 (13 December 2022)
The High Court allowed a late amendment to plead vagueness in a sale agreement’s finance condition and reinstated the appeal, with costs against the appellant’s estate.
Camilleri v De Graaf N.O (In his capacity as the Executor of The Estate Late Raymond Camilleri) (7310/2017) [2021] ZAWCHC 264 (17 December 2021)
The court found that the wording of clauses 9.4 and 9.7 of the Consent Paper is clear and unambiguous. The phrase 'at the time of his withdrawal from the Fund' refers to the event when the deceased ceased membership and accessed his pension benefits, which occurred upon retirement and the subsequent purchase of a living annuity. The 'nett entitlement' means the gross benefit less taxes at the time of withdrawal. The Defendant's alternative interpretations were rejected as unbusinesslike and unsupported by the contract or factual matrix. The Plaintiff is entitled to half of the nett entitlemen…
Source excerpt
Koster v Industrial Zone Limited and Others (25767/2006) [2021] ZAGPJHC 52 (16 February 2021)
The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and holding that the plaintiff’s vagueness argument on clause 22.3 was not enough.
Koster v Industrial Zone Limited and Others (25767/2006) [2020] ZAGPJHC 394 (30 December 2020)
Late amendment refused in a property sale dispute; the action was dismissed because the plaintiff’s new case was prejudicial and excipiable.
Steenkamp NO and Others v Mashava and Others (36141/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 227 (12 August 2020)
The High Court upheld an exception to a claim attacking an oral share sale as vague, but dismissed the challenge to the annexed valuation document.
Hugo, Kirsten & Kirsten (Pty) Ltd v Collotype Labels (Pty) Ltd (323/2019) [2020] ZASCA 21 (25 March 2020)
The court held that a lease clause requiring negotiation of a new lease was void, but the invalid clause did not invalidate the fixed-term lease itself.
Shepherd Real Estate Investments (Pty) Ltd v Roux Le Roux Motors CC (1318/2018) [2019] ZASCA 178; 2020 (2) SA 419 (SCA) (2 December 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the renewal clause in the lease agreement, which required the rental and costs to be mutually agreed upon in writing when the right of renewal was exercised, amounted to an agreement to agree and was void for vagueness. The arbitration clause did not serve as a deadlock-breaking mechanism for determining essential terms of a prospective contract, as it only applied to disputes regarding the interpretation and implementation of the existing agreement, not the creation of new terms. The respondent's rectification defence failed because there was no common m…
Source excerpt
Central African Road Services v The Minister of Transport and Another (62873/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 56 (28 February 2019)
The court found that the Minister complied with the statutory requirement to consult the Board prior to promulgating the 2014 Regulations. The consultation process, which included meetings, memoranda, and stakeholder engagement, afforded the Board an opportunity to convey its views, and those views were given fair consideration. The fact that the Minister met with Board emissaries rather than the full Board was not fatal, as the process reflected significant interaction and genuine consultation. Regarding Regulations 7(5) and (6), the court held that section 51(a) does not restrict the Minist…
Source excerpt
Explore more
