Campbell v Ramlakan
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Court | Durban and Coast Local Division |
| Judge | Broome J |
| Judgment Date | 27 April 1949 |
| Citation | 1949 (3) SA 126 (D) |
| Hearing Date | 25 April 1949 |
Broome, J.:
The plaintiff claims provisional sentence on a mortgage bond. The defendant is in default. Plaintiff is entitled to provisional sentence. The only question which arises is whether he is entitled to interest up to the due date of the bond, namely the 30th June, 1951. He claims this interest in terms of an express condition in the bond. Mr. Warner concedes that though this condition is a usual one in mortgage bonds it has not in the past been the practice to grant interest beyond the date of payment. He can find no case in which such interest has been granted but, on the other hand, he can find no case where a claim for such interest has been refused. I therefore deal with the matter unencumbered...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
7 practice notes
-
Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Cactus Investments (Pty) Ltd
...1910 TPD 1058: referred to Caltex Oil (SA) Ltd v Secretary for Inland Revenue 1975 (1) SA 665 (A): referred to E Campbell v Ramlakan 1949 (3) SA 126 (D): dictum at 127 Challenor's Estate v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1960 (1) SA 13 (N): referred to Commissioner for Customs and Excise v ......
-
Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Cactus Investments (Pty) Ltd
...date for payment as well (Bernitz v Euvrard J Southwood J (supra at 602); Tillett v Willcox 1941 AD 100 at 107; Campbell v Ramlakan 1949 (3) SA 126 (D) at 127 and A Eyre v Higgins 1949 (4) SA 803 (C) at None of the agreements made provision for the repayment of the capital before the agreed......
-
Polyfoto (International Ltd) v Registrar of Patents
...conferred on the Governor-General power to prescribe any conditions. It is possible that the Governor-General considered it advisable 1949 (3) SA p126 Neser that conditions should be inserted in all orders restoring patents to protect persons who have availed themselves of the subject-matte......
-
Challenor v Ferreira
...sentence. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment. S. T. Pretorius, for the plaintiff, referred to Campbell v Ramlakan, 1949 (3) SA 126; Eyre v Higgins, 1949 (4) SA Defendant in default. Cur adv vult. Postea (June 4th). D Judgment E Shaw, J.: The plaintiff claims provisional sentence......
Get Started for Free
7 cases
-
Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Cactus Investments (Pty) Ltd
...1910 TPD 1058: referred to Caltex Oil (SA) Ltd v Secretary for Inland Revenue 1975 (1) SA 665 (A): referred to E Campbell v Ramlakan 1949 (3) SA 126 (D): dictum at 127 Challenor's Estate v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1960 (1) SA 13 (N): referred to Commissioner for Customs and Excise v ......
-
Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Cactus Investments (Pty) Ltd
...date for payment as well (Bernitz v Euvrard J Southwood J (supra at 602); Tillett v Willcox 1941 AD 100 at 107; Campbell v Ramlakan 1949 (3) SA 126 (D) at 127 and A Eyre v Higgins 1949 (4) SA 803 (C) at None of the agreements made provision for the repayment of the capital before the agreed......
-
Polyfoto (International Ltd) v Registrar of Patents
...conferred on the Governor-General power to prescribe any conditions. It is possible that the Governor-General considered it advisable 1949 (3) SA p126 Neser that conditions should be inserted in all orders restoring patents to protect persons who have availed themselves of the subject-matte......
-
Challenor v Ferreira
...sentence. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment. S. T. Pretorius, for the plaintiff, referred to Campbell v Ramlakan, 1949 (3) SA 126; Eyre v Higgins, 1949 (4) SA Defendant in default. Cur adv vult. Postea (June 4th). D Judgment E Shaw, J.: The plaintiff claims provisional sentence......
Get Started for Free