Cassimjee v Cassimjee
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Court | Natal Provincial Division |
| Judge | Broome J and Shaw AJ |
| Judgment Date | 06 August 1947 |
| Citation | 1947 (3) SA 701 (N) |
| Hearing Date | 26 June 1947 |
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
12 practice notes
-
Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd
...86CappliedBernitz v Euvrard 1943 AD 595: dictum at 602 appliedBowditch v Peel & Magill 1921 AD 561: referred toCassimjee v Cassimjee 1947 (3) SA 701 (N): approvedCombined Developers v Arun Holdings and Others 2015 (3) SA 215 (WCC):dictum in para [43] comparedCool Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbardand ......
-
Proud Investments (Pty) Ltd v Lanchem International (Pty) Ltd
...of argument. See also Adam v Patel 1976 (2) SA 801 (T) at 804 - 5; Patel v Adam 1977 (2) SA 653 (A) at 667D; Cassimjee v Cassimjee 1947 (3) SA 701 (N) at 706; Caltex (Africa) Ltd v Robin Rissen & Co (Pty) Ltd 1965 (2) SA 154 (W). What is stated H above in respect of clause 9.1.2 is mutatis ......
-
Individual performance contracts in higher education: A critical appraisal
...perfor-mance measures are either extremely vague, inappropriate or not18Beretta v Beretta 1924 TPD 60.19Cassimjee v Cassimjee 1947 (3) SA 701 (N) 706.20Steyn NO v Lomlin (Edms) Bpk 1980 (1) SA 167 (O).21Trook t/a Trook’s Tea Room v Shaik and Another 1983 (3) SA 935 (N).22Van der Merwe op ci......
-
Habib and Another v Ethekwini Municipality
...the exception as an irregular step, and it also dismissed the exception (see [25]). Cases cited Southern Africa Cassimjee v Cassimjee 1947 (3) SA 701 (N): referred First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd v Perry NO and Others 2001 (3) SA 960 (SCA) ([2001] 3 All SA 331; 2001 CLR 196; [200......
Get Started for Free
11 cases
-
Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd
...86CappliedBernitz v Euvrard 1943 AD 595: dictum at 602 appliedBowditch v Peel & Magill 1921 AD 561: referred toCassimjee v Cassimjee 1947 (3) SA 701 (N): approvedCombined Developers v Arun Holdings and Others 2015 (3) SA 215 (WCC):dictum in para [43] comparedCool Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbardand ......
-
Proud Investments (Pty) Ltd v Lanchem International (Pty) Ltd
...of argument. See also Adam v Patel 1976 (2) SA 801 (T) at 804 - 5; Patel v Adam 1977 (2) SA 653 (A) at 667D; Cassimjee v Cassimjee 1947 (3) SA 701 (N) at 706; Caltex (Africa) Ltd v Robin Rissen & Co (Pty) Ltd 1965 (2) SA 154 (W). What is stated H above in respect of clause 9.1.2 is mutatis ......
-
Habib and Another v Ethekwini Municipality
...the exception as an irregular step, and it also dismissed the exception (see [25]). Cases cited Southern Africa Cassimjee v Cassimjee 1947 (3) SA 701 (N): referred First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd v Perry NO and Others 2001 (3) SA 960 (SCA) ([2001] 3 All SA 331; 2001 CLR 196; [200......
-
David Trust and Others v Aegis Insurance Co Ltd and Others
...referred to the following: Canadian Superior Oil Ltd v Concord Insurance Co Ltd 1992 (4) SA 263 (W) at 273 - 6 Cassimjee v Cassimjee 1947 (3) SA 701 (N) at 704 Commissioner of Customs and Excise v Bank of Lisbon 1994 (1) SA 205 (N) at 208I H Davies v Hosken [1937] 3 All ER 192 (KB) at 195 F......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Individual performance contracts in higher education: A critical appraisal
...perfor-mance measures are either extremely vague, inappropriate or not18Beretta v Beretta 1924 TPD 60.19Cassimjee v Cassimjee 1947 (3) SA 701 (N) 706.20Steyn NO v Lomlin (Edms) Bpk 1980 (1) SA 167 (O).21Trook t/a Trook’s Tea Room v Shaik and Another 1983 (3) SA 935 (N).22Van der Merwe op ci......
