|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| February 2023 |
|
|
SUMMARY
Interdict – To restrain the respondent from interfering with applicant’s possession of certain land – Applicant relying on unregistered sub – lease agreement and is asserting a right of lien as a bona fide occupier – Long term unregistered sub -lease agreement null and void and cannot be a source of rights – Applicant failing to disclose quantum of alleged enrichment or increase in the value of property and evidence of impoverishment – A claim for lien not substantiated – Applicant’s possession interfered with – Requirements of interdict proved - Respondent restrained from taking possession of the premises unless it is by due process of law
|
28 February 2023 |
|
|
28 February 2023 |
|
SUMMARY
Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – discretion of the court to grant such – Rule 33 of the High Court Rules Restated.
|
23 February 2023 |
|
|
20 February 2023 |
|
SUMMARY
CIVIL PRACTICE- Application for contempt of court- The requisites of the remedy re-stated and applied.
|
16 February 2023 |
|
SUMMARY
LAW OF CONTRACT AND DAMAGES- Payment of mora interest for repudiated sale of a landed property- Claim for loss of profits on account of repudiation- Principles applicable considered and applied- Defendant claiming that the plaintiff contributed negligently to his incurring damages-Held, unlike in the law of delict, a party’s contributory negligence cannot be defence to a claim for damages for breach of contract unless the plaintiff’s conduct is the only cause of damage.
|
16 February 2023 |
|
|
13 February 2023 |
|
SUMMARY
Delict- claim for damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, contumelia, and unlawful detention. Plaintiff arrested and detained by the police- assaulted during the detention- nature of the injuries-
|
10 February 2023 |
|
|
9 February 2023 |
|
|
8 February 2023 |
|
SUMMARY
When, as in the present case, there are two mutually destructive stories Plaintiff succeeds because on providence of probabilities his version is true, and Defendant’s version is mistaken and falls to be rejected. In deciding whether that evidence is true or not the Court had weighed up and tested the Plaintiff’s allegations against the general probabilities. The Plaintiff succeeds because the Court believes him and finds that the Defendant’s version is false.
|
7 February 2023 |