South Africa Case Law

Tosholo v Road Accident Fund (875/2023)

Tosholo v Road Accident Fund (875/2023) [2025] ZASCA 21 (19 March 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

875/2023

Judges

Mocumie, Mabindla-Boqwana, Molefe, Keightley, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written settlement agreement signed by the appellant on 18 November 2013 constituted a full and final compromise of her claim against the Road Accident Fund. The agreement expressly discharged the RAF from all liability related to the accident, and the appellant confirmed her understanding of its terms. There was no evidence or pleading to impugn or rectify the agreement. As a result, no further dispute (lis) remained between the parties, and the appellant was precluded from pursuing additional claims. The high court's finding that the claim was compr…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Compromise
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Res Judicata

M.B v R.B (259/2023)

M.B v R.B (259/2023) [2024] ZASCA 116 (24 July 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

259/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Mothle, Molefe, Dawood, Mbhele

The SCA held that a later change of heart did not amount to a common mistake justifying variation of a divorce settlement agreement.

• Divorce Settlement
• Variation Of Court Order
• Justus Error
• Accrual System
• Compromise
• Appealability

D.K and Others v C.F (26567/2021)

D.K and Others v C.F (26567/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1331 (20 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26567/2021

Judge

L R Adams

The High Court held that no binding settlement was concluded because the parties were not ad idem on how the R600,000 settlement payment would be funded.

• Settlement Agreement
• Compromise
• Consensus Ad Idem
• National Credit Act
• Costs Award
• Settlement-agreement

South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) v National Education Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU) and Others (J243/2023)

South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) v National Education Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU) and Others (J243/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 286 (10 October 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J243/2023

Judge

N P Voyi

The Labour Court discharged a rule nisi in SASSA’s urgent strike interdict application, finding the dispute moot after a compromise and signed implementation plan.

• Unprotected Strike
• Interdict
• Compromise
• Service Of Process
• Mootness
• Unprotected-strike

Uni-Span Formwork and Scaffolding (Pty) Ltd v SVK Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (26270/2021)

Uni-Span Formwork and Scaffolding (Pty) Ltd v SVK Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (26270/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1902 (20 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

26270/2021

Judge

Davis

The High Court enforced a written settlement agreement, rejecting allegations of undue influence and lis pendens, and ordered payment with costs.

• Settlement Agreement
• Compromise
• Undue Influence
• Enforcement Of Contract
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Settlement-agreement

Engineering Council Of South Africa v Madonsela and Others

Engineering Council Of South Africa v Madonsela and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 265; 58061/2021 (28 March 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

58061/2021

Judge

MOTHA AJ

The court found that the defendant's plea and third party notice failed to contain the necessary averments to sustain a defence or cause of action. The Apportionment of Damages Act does not apply to contractual claims, rendering the defendant's reliance on apportionment and contribution legally incompetent. The defendant did not plead sufficient facts to establish a right to indemnification, nor did he set out the essential elements of compromise or provide material facts for lis pendens and prescription. The third party procedure was found to be inappropriate under the circumstances, and the…

Source excerpt

• Exception Procedure
• Third Party Notice
• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Apportionment Of Damages Act
• Compromise
• Prescription

Nedbank v Richardson (2184/2021)

Nedbank v Richardson (2184/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 108 (12 December 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

2184/2021

Judge

Rugunanan

Summary judgment was granted to Nedbank for the certified debt on a mortgage loan after the defendant failed to show a bona fide defence.

• Summary Judgment
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Non Variation Clause
• Compromise
• National Credit Act
• Summary-judgment

Utopia Trade and Investments (Pty) Ltd v Stoneridge Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (D9264/2018)

Utopia Trade and Investments (Pty) Ltd v Stoneridge Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (D9264/2018) [2022] ZAKZDHC 33 (30 August 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D9264/2018

Judge

Mathenjwa AJ

The court held that the settlement agreement constitutes a valid compromise, barring the respondents from raising defences based on the alleged invalidity of the original sale and loan agreements. The business rescue plan did not prohibit the sale of the business, and the sale was implemented with the consent of the business rescue practitioner. The respondents only raised the defence of invalidity after the settlement agreement was concluded, and not in the main application. The Shabangu decision is distinguishable, as it dealt with a settlement agreement following an admittedly invalid orig…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Compromise
• Suretyship
• Business Rescue
• Enforcement Of Judgments

Shabangu v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and Others

The acknowledgement of debt was merely a resuscitation of the invalid loan agreement and did not create a new valid obligation; because it perpetuated the original invalidity and did not cover any enrichment claim, it could not found liability against the sureties under the suretyship.

Source excerpt

• Invalid loan agreement
• Acknowledgment of debt
• Compromise
• Novation
• Enrichment
• Accessory liability

Pansegrouw v Rendeals Four Consulting (Pty) Ltd (JS539/17)

Pansegrouw v Rendeals Four Consulting (Pty) Ltd (JS539/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 7; [2019] 6 BLLR 572 (LC) (23 January 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS539/17

Judge

S Mabaso

The court found that the applicant's claims for contractual notice pay and contractual leave pay were compromised by the CCMA settlement agreement, which expressly settled all statutory payments due to the applicant. The applicant, by accepting the settlement, waived his right to pursue further claims under the employment contract for notice and leave pay, as these are regulated by sections 21 and 37 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The special plea of res judicata failed because the respondent did not prove that the same cause of action had been referred to and finalized by the CCM…

Source excerpt

• Contractual Notice Pay
• Contractual Leave Pay
• Compromise
• Res Judicata
• Jurisdiction
• Damages For Breach Of Contract