SUMMARY The Applicant in this matter was Airports Company South Africa (“ACSA”). The Respondents, Big Five Duty Free (Pty) Ltd (“Big Five”), DFS Flemingo SA (Pty) Ltd (“Flemingo”) and Tourvest Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“Tourvest”), were bidders for a tender issued by ACSA to operate duty free shops at its international airports for a period of
SUMMARY Victor Biggar (“the Applicant”), was employed by the City of Johannesburg: Emergency Management Services (“the Respondent”), as a Fire Fighter Emergency Medical Technician based at the Brixton Fire Station from 2000. The Applicant was the first black person to live in the Respondent’s housing apartments. During the residence period his family had been subjected
Introduction This is part 1 of an “idiots guide” to logging queries, disputes and complaints with the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (“COJ”). Although one might question why it is necessary to write an article explaining what appears to be such a simple concept, we regularly receive reports of customers not being able to take


INTRODUCTION The purpose of this article is to examine the maxim “huur gaat voor koop” that applies in South African Law. MEANING OF THE MAXIM Loosely translated it means that an existing lease trumps a later sale. This means that in the case of a lease of immovable property, a tenant is protected against the
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND This matter deals with whether there were a series of agreements for the sale of wine barrels between the parties namely, Vincorp (Pty) Ltd (“the Appellant”) and a Hungarian company, Trust Hungary ZRT (“the Respondent”). In particular, whether there existed the requisite animus contrahendi in respect of both parties. The Respondent, alleging
SUMMARY The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming R1,100,000.00 for alleged professional negligence by various hospitals’ doctors and nurses that treated the plaintiff. The defendant raised an exception, and the plaintiff amended her pleadings. The defendant raised a second exception on the basis that the plaintiff’s amended particulars failed to rectify the complaint, are
SUMMARY During July 2003, the first appellant, Motala, being one of the joint liquidators of Cement Board Industries (Pty) Ltd (“CBI”), instituted an action, along with his colleagues and fellow joint liquidators, against the fifth respondent, Boake Incorporated (“Boake”), and the sixth respondent, Mr Kevin Wiles (“Wiles”). The action was still ongoing in August 2010
BACKGROUND & SUMMARY The appellant in this matter was MWB Business Exchanges Centres Ltd (“MWB”), a company who managed serviced offices in London. The respondent in this matter was Rock Advertising Limited (“Rock”). MWB and Rock entered into a licence agreement (the “Agreement”) for the occupation of certain office space (the “Premises”) for a fixed
SUMMARY On 15 May 2015, a Rule 43 order in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court was granted dealing with the respondent’s maintenance obligations towards the applicant. On 29 May 2015, the respondent made the first payment and continued to do so until 28 March 2018. The matter, in respect of hearing of the
By Chantelle Gladwin-Wood, Partner and Dominique Lloyd, Associate Introduction This article considers the legal question of whether a deposit of money made by a tenant with a landlord on the one hand, or a deposit of a customer of a municipality/Eskom on the other, constitutes a pledge in terms of our law. This is important