Cornerstone Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another v Zacpak Cape Town Depot (Pty) Ltd (879/2020) [2022] ZASCA 12; [2022] 2 All SA 13 (SCA) (25 January 2022)

Cornerstone Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another v Zacpak Cape Town Depot (Pty) Ltd (879/2020) [2022] ZASCA 12; [2022] 2 All SA 13 (SCA) (25 January 2022)

The court found that Cornerstone, through its agent, gave express instructions to Zacpak for the release of goods to Bridge Shipping, as evidenced by emails and payment of related invoices. Zacpak's liability to SARS did not arise from its own fault but from the submission of forged documents by third parties, with no evidence of Zacpak's complicity. The indemnity clauses covered all liability arising from compliance with Cornerstone's instructions, and the suretyship clause was not limited to storage charges but extended to all amounts due under the contract, including SARS claims. The parol evidence rule precluded Mr Aitken from limiting his liability by reference to his subjective...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 12
Parties
Appellant: Cornerstone Logistics (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Preston Cheslin Aitken; Respondent: Zacpak Cape Town Depot (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 January 2022
Case Number
879/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
Zondi, Gorven, Mothle, Smith, Phatshoane
Legal Topics
Contractual Indemnity, Suretyship Liability, Customs and Excise Act, Interpretation of Contracts, Urgency in Motion Proceedings
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Indemnity Suretyship Liability Customs and Excise Act Interpretation of Contracts Urgency in Motion Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornerstone Logistics (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Preston Cheslin Aitken

Appellant

Zacpak Cape Town Depot (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Cornerstone instruct Zacpak regarding the release of goods to Bridge Shipping?
  2. 2 Did Zacpak's liability to SARS arise as a result of its own fault?
  3. 3 Was Mr Aitken's liability as surety limited to charges in respect of storage services?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Cornerstone, through its agent, gave express instructions to Zacpak for the release of goods to Bridge Shipping, as evidenced by emails and payment of related invoices. Zacpak's liability to SARS did not arise from its own fault but from the submission of forged documents by third parties, with no evidence of Zacpak's complicity. The indemnity clauses covered all liability arising from compliance with Cornerstone's instructions, and the suretyship clause was not limited to storage charges but extended to all amounts due under the contract, including SARS claims. The parol evidence rule precluded Mr Aitken from limiting his liability by reference to his subjective...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of senior counsel.