Welcome to Anagrammer Crossword Genius! Keep reading below to see if theart is an answer to any crossword puzzle or word game (Scrabble, Words With Friends etc). Scroll down to see all the info we have compiled on theart.
theart
Searching in Crosswords ...
The answer THEART has 4 possible clue(s) in existing crosswords.
Searching in Word Games ...
The word THEART is NOT valid in any word game. (Sorry, you cannot play THEART in Scrabble, Words With Friends etc)
Searching in Dictionaries ...
Definitions of theart in various dictionaries:
THEART - Theart and Another v Minnaar NO; Senekal v Winskor 174 (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure, as well as i...
Word Research / Anagrams and more ...
Keep reading for additional results and analysis below.
Possible Crossword Clues |
---|
Start of a how-to title |
Start of a Trump book title |
Start of some how-to titles |
How-to title words |
Last Seen in these Crosswords & Puzzles |
---|
Nov 2 2008 L.A. Times Daily |
Feb 22 2008 New York Times |
Nov 22 2004 USA Today |
Jun 1 1997 New York Times |
Theart description |
---|
Theart and Another v Minnaar NO; Senekal v Winskor 174 (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure, as well as in the area of legal interpretation. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on November 5, 2009, with judgment handed down on December 3. Mpati P, Brand JA, Snyders JA, Malan JA and Bosielo JA presided. Counsel for the appellants was BC Wharton; CHJ Maree appeared for the respondent in case No. 483/08 and M. Verster for the respondent in case No. 007/09. These were appeals from two decisions in the High Court, Cape Town. The appellants' attorneys were RP Totos, Cape Town, and Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 483/08 were Van der Spuy & Vennote, Cape Town, and Phatshoane Henney Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 007/09 were JC Van der Berg Attorneys, George, and Hill, McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. * In two cases of unlawful occupation of land, and actions for statutory eviction from such land, the notice requirements of the Magistrates' Courts came under scrutiny. The Magistrates' Courts Rules compel a procedure differing from that in the High Court. Bosielo JA, however, found that, as long as the notice achieves the general purpose contemplated by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) and the Magistrates' Courts Rules, the fact that the notice does not strictly comply with such provisions is not necessarily fatal; in other words, two notices in two separate documents were not required. |