South Africa Case Law

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (Pty) Ltd (2022/9895)

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (Pty) Ltd (2022/9895) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1359 (23 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/9895

Judge

Friedman

The court found that the applicant, Auckland Park Theological Seminary, has reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the prescription defence under section 12(1) of the Prescription Act. The judge acknowledged the complexity and novelty of the issues, including when the debt became due and the implications of the Constitutional Court's decision on the cession agreement. The court also addressed the applicant's criticism for raising the warranty against eviction issue without it being argued, concluding that while it is desirable to call for supplementary submissions, the failure to…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 12
• Leave To Appeal
• Contract Of Cession
• Warranty Against Eviction

Van der Meulen and Another v Joubert and Another (2777/2016)

Van der Meulen and Another v Joubert and Another (2777/2016) [2018] ZAFSHC 158 (18 October 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2777/2016

Judge

Mhlambi

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove an oral sale agreement with the second defendant; the defendants acted only as agents and the action was dismissed with costs.

• Agency Relationship
• Oral Contract
• Warranty Against Eviction
• Burden Of Proof
• Oral-contract
• Agency-law

Koster v Norval (20609/14)

Koster v Norval (20609/14) [2015] ZASCA 185 (30 November 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20609/2014

Judges

Ponnan, Majiedt, Pillay, Van der Merwe, Baartman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that South African law does not require the seller in a contract of sale to be the owner of the thing sold. The seller's obligation is to deliver undisturbed possession and to warrant against eviction, not to transfer ownership. In this case, the respondent delivered possession of the game to the appellant, and there was no evidence of eviction or a claim by a person with better title. The appellant's defence based on alleged tacit or implied terms requiring transfer of ownership was rejected, as such terms are not implied by law and cannot be imported in cont…

Source excerpt

• Contract Of Sale
• Delivery Of Possession
• Warranty Against Eviction
• Implied And Tacit Terms

Ukubekezela Logistics v Umzobanzi Coal & Energy (2014/45450)

Ukubekezela Logistics v Umzobanzi Coal & Energy (2014/45450) [2015] ZAGPJHC 128 (23 June 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2014/45450

Judge

Fisher

The High Court held that a lessor need not own the leased property for a lease to be valid, and dismissed the urgent application with costs.

• Lease Agreement Validity
• Warranty Against Eviction
• Misrepresentation
• Urgent Interdict
• Anti Dissipatory Relief
• Lease-validity

Rowan Tree 1169 CC v Cowsta Bellegings (Pty) Ltd (3637/2007)

Rowan Tree 1169 CC v Cowsta Bellegings (Pty) Ltd (3637/2007) [2014] ZAECPEHC 41 (19 June 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

3637/2007

Judge

Goosen

The High Court quantified damages for a breach of a warranty against eviction, awarding loss of profits, agreed building and retrenchment costs, interest, VAT, and costs.

• Breach Of Contract
• Warranty Against Eviction
• Quantum Of Damages
• Loss Of Profits
• Retrenchment Costs
• Breach-of-contract

Van Zyl and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (12341/2013)

Van Zyl and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (12341/2013) [2013] ZAGPJHC 206 (9 May 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

12341/2013

Judges

I. Miltz, N.D. Tshabalala, C.J. Claassen

High Court appeal in a rescission matter, holding that the appellants showed a bona fide eviction-based defence and good cause to rescind default judgment.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Suretyship
• Warranty Against Eviction
• Condonation
• Default Judgment
• Rescission-of-judgment

Absa Bank Ltd and Another v Eksteen (81/10)

Absa Bank Ltd and Another v Eksteen (81/10) [2011] ZASCA 40 (29 March 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

81/10

Judges

NAVSA, NUGENT, HEHER, CACHALIA, MALAN

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a seller’s warranty against eviction can apply where a vehicle is seized under statutory prohibition, and dismissed both appeals.

• Warranty Against Eviction
• Statutory Prohibition Of Possession
• Sale Of Goods
• Third Party Indemnification
• Warranty-against-eviction
• Sale-of-goods

Furman and Another v Batha (10044/07)

Furman and Another v Batha (10044/07) [2010] ZAGPJHC 85 (23 September 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10044/07

Judge

C G Lamont

The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to indemnification from the defendant under clause 9 of the sale agreement. The defendant was aware of the agent's claim and the litigation, participated in consultations, and was given ample opportunity to intervene or take over the defence but chose not to do so. The plaintiffs conducted a reasonable defence, and the defendant was bound by the outcome of the Magistrate's Court action. The evidence established that the estate agent was the effective cause of the sale, as the defendant attended the show day at the agent's invitation and concea…

Source excerpt

• Indemnity Clause
• Estate Agent Commission
• Effective Cause Of Sale
• Warranty Against Eviction

Eksteen v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (4439/2007)

Eksteen v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (4439/2007) [2009] ZAFSHC 111 (30 October 2009)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4439/2007

Judge

Nxusani

The plaintiff gave proper notice to the defendant and called upon it to intervene regarding the eviction. He was prohibited by law from possessing the vehicle due to tampered engine and chassis numbers, as per Section 68(6) of the National Road Traffic Act. The plaintiff was not obliged to apply for a SAPVIN number, as lawful entitlement to possession was not established. The plaintiff put up a sufficient virilis defensio and did everything reasonably possible to allow the defendant to protect his possession. The defendant failed to act and is therefore liable to indemnify the plaintiff for t…

Source excerpt

• Warranty Against Eviction
• Instalment Sale Agreement
• Virilis Defensio
• Forfeiture Of Property
• National Road Traffic Act
• Indemnification

Knopp No and Another v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (AR119/2008)

Knopp No and Another v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (AR119/2008) [2009] ZAKZHC 12 (25 February 2009)

Court

High Courts - Kwazulu Natal

Case number

AR119/2008

Judges

Kruger, K Pillay

Appeal over an installment sale agreement was dismissed. The court held that new defences could not be raised for the first time on appeal and found no term requiring title to pass on payment.

• Installment Sale Agreement
• Suretyship
• Illegality Of Contract
• Warranty Against Eviction
• Remittal On Appeal
• Installment-sale-agreement