Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Sheriff of the High Court for the District of Witbank v Morris (2718/2020) [2025] ZAMPMHC 7 (29 January 2025)
The High Court cancelled a sale in execution after the purchaser failed to pay the balance and comply with sale conditions, and ordered the property resold.
Redpath Mining (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Siyakhula Sonke Empowerment Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others (51107/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1216 (20 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed the respondents’ action because they failed to provide an irrevocable R2 million bank guarantee for security for costs within the ordered time.
Cape Peninsula University of Technology v Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd - Counter-Application (4899/23) [2023] ZAWCHC 276 (10 November 2023)
The High Court found CPUT’s urgent counter-application for eviction persuasive, holding that Ma-Afrika’s lien-based possession was defeated by a tendered bank guarantee.
Cloete Murray N O and Others v Humansdorp Co-operative Limited (1274/2021) [2022] ZASCA 187; 2023 (3) SA 66 (SCA) (30 December 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that payment to the respondent was made under valid demand guarantees, not as a disposition by the insolvent company.
South African Bank of Athens v 24 Hour Cash CC (A3027/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 217 (11 August 2016)
High Court appeal about whether a bank guarantee was issued against a cash deposit or on credit, and whether the respondent proved repayment entitlement.
Silvermoon Investments 278 CC v Slipknot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd and Another (2142/2012) [2012] ZAECGHC 106 (28 December 2012)
The court found that the applicant had established considerable prejudice due to delays in execution, which threatened the viability of its development and contractual arrangements. The respondent's arguments regarding the in duplum rule and constitutional invalidity were not persuasive, as the rule is entrenched in positive law and its retrospective invalidity would cause chaos and be unjust. The prospects of success on appeal were not sufficient to outweigh the prejudice to the applicant. The court exercised its discretion to grant leave to execute the order, compelling the respondent to de…
Source excerpt
Procprops 60 (Pty) Ltd v Nedbank Ltd (41976/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 309 (29 November 2012)
The court found that the wording 'first written demand' in the guarantee was ambiguous and did not clearly restrict Nedbank's obligation to a single payment. The guarantee was for a fixed sum, and the terms did not expressly provide that the guarantee would lapse upon partial payment. The requirement to attach the original guarantee to a demand was not fatal in this case, as Nedbank was in possession of the original document and suffered no prejudice. The court held that strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the guarantee was not necessary where the substantive requirements we…
Source excerpt
Silvermoon Investments 278 CC v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd (2142/2012) [2012] ZAECGHC 58 (23 July 2012)
High Court granted urgent relief ordering cancellation of a mortgage bond on tender of payment calculated under the in duplum rule.
Sedgewick NO and Others v Printworks Textile Printers (Pty) Ltd [2011] ZAWCHC 284; ; 5504/2011 (25 May 2011)
High Court winding-up application granted. The court held the respondent was unable to pay its debts despite a bank guarantee and placed it in provisional liquidation.
ABSA Bank Ltd v Robin's Mobile and Fleet Maintenance CC (11956/2011) [2011] ZAKZDHC 41 (5 April 2011)
The court found that the respondent's lien was extinguished when it voluntarily released the vehicle to Reefer in June 2009, and there was no agreement for revival of the lien upon the vehicle's return in February 2010. The respondent was not entitled to claim storage charges from the applicant, as there was no agreement or enrichment. The applicant was only liable for the charges relating to removing the gearbox and diagnosis after February 2010, for which it had tendered payment by bank guarantee. The rule nisi was confirmed, and the respondent was directed to deliver the vehicle to the app…
Source excerpt
Explore more
