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
Asmal v Essa (38/2013) [2014] ZASCA 62; [2014] 3 All SA 115 (SCA); 2016 (1) SA 95 (SCA) (14 May 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the loan arrangements were not credit agreements under the National Credit Act, so provisional sentence on the cheques was competent.
RSA Aartappelsaad Beurs (Edms) Bpk v Weldaad Boerdery (Edms) Bpk (3852/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 159 (9 December 2010)
High Court provisional sentence matter over dishonoured post-dated cheques. The court found mutually destructive versions and granted sentence with costs.
S A Timber (Welkom) (Edms) Bpk v Lezmin 2815 BK (2607/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 49 (14 August 2008)
High Court provisional sentence was granted on a cheque for R300,000, rejecting National Credit Act and oral-agreement defences.
African Bank Limited t/a ab Commerce v Covmark Marketing cc t/a Covmark Marketing and Others (9238/2005, 10785/2005) [2008] ZAKZHC 36; 2008 (6) SA 46 (D) (4 April 2008)
The court considered whether African Bank was a holder in due course of three post-dated cheques and whether special endorsements made them irregular under the Bills of Exchange Act.
Constantaras v BCE Foodservice Equipment (Pty) Ltd (208/06) [2007] ZASCA 86; [2007] SCA 86 (RSA) ; 2007 (6) SA 338 (SCA) (1 June 2007)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 23(2) of the Close Corporations Act is peremptory and imposes personal liability on the signatory of a cheque issued on behalf of a close corporation if the cheque does not contain the prescribed particulars, regardless of the parties' intentions or the holder's knowledge. The defence of rectification is not available to defeat statutory liability, as the liability arises ex lege and is not contractual. The court further held that a defendant whose plea is struck out on exception is entitled, as a matter of course, to an opportunity to amend the p…
Source excerpt
Lutzkie NO and Another v Zenith Concessions Ltd (386/2002) [2003] ZASCA 97; 2003 (6) SA 643 (SCA) (26 September 2003)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a claim on a cheque is prescribed separately under section 11(c) of the Prescription Act and is not extinguished when the underlying debt prescribes.
Explore more
