Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Delict [2023] ZAGPJHC 754

Devland Cash and Carry (Pty) Ltd v G4S Cash Solutions SA (Pty) Ltd (2020/16910)

Devland Cash and Carry (Pty) Ltd v G4S Cash Solutions SA (Pty) Ltd (2020/16910) [2023] ZAGPJHC 754 (3 July 2023)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2020/16910
Judge
Moorcroft

The court found that the plaintiff's loss occurred during the performance of the contract for cash management and security services. G4S's actions, including the timing and manner of cash collections, were in fulfilment of its contractual obligations. The existence of the contract regulated the parties' rights and obligations, and the law does not impose a delictual remedy where the loss arises directly from contractual performance. The court distinguished this case from others where delictual liability was found due to breaches of duties independent of the contract. As the pleaded facts did…

Source excerpt

  • Concurrent Liability
  • Contractual Damages
  • Aquilian Action
  • Duty Of Care
  • Limitation Of Liability Clause
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2019] ZAKZDHC 28

Voermol Feeds (Pty) Ltd v Hattingh (13225/2010)

Voermol Feeds (Pty) Ltd v Hattingh (13225/2010) [2019] ZAKZDHC 28 (5 November 2019)

Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
13225/2010
Judge
Henriques

The court found that the defendant's counter-claim was based in delict but relied exclusively on the breach of contractual duties owed by the plaintiff. The defendant did not plead an independent cause of action unrelated to the contract. Clause 6 of the agreement expressly excluded liability for indirect or consequential damages, including those arising from negligence, and limited direct damages to the purchase price of the goods. The defendant conceded these limitations. South African law, as established in Lillicrap and subsequent cases, does not permit Aquilian liability where the neglig…

Source excerpt

  • Contractual Limitation Of Liability
  • Pure Economic Loss
  • Negligent Advice
  • Exclusion Of Claims
  • Concurrent Liability
  • Duty Of Care
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2018] ZAGPJHC 61

Trio Engineering Products Inc v Pilot Crushtec International (Pty) Ltd (16/16836)

Trio Engineering Products Inc v Pilot Crushtec International (Pty) Ltd (16/16836) [2018] ZAGPJHC 61; 2019 (3) SA 580 (GJ) (22 March 2018)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
16/16836
Judge
Unterhalter

The court held that Pilot's second claim was not silent as to the duration of the agreement, as it was pleaded to be continuous and indefinite, thus not terminable on reasonable notice. The exception based on termination failed. Regarding the alternative claim, the court found that it was founded in delict, not contract, and that the business relationship between the parties gave rise to duties not repugnant to the contract, including duties not to compete unlawfully and not to misuse confidential information. The court held that sufficient facts were pleaded to support a duty of care and wro…

Source excerpt

  • Exclusive Distribution Agreement
  • Termination Of Contract
  • Concurrent Liability
  • Unlawful Competition
  • Confidential Information
  • Quantification Of Damages
Read case analysis
Delict [2004] ZASCA 79

Holtzhausen v Absa Bank Ltd. (280/03)

Holtzhausen v Absa Bank Ltd. (280/03) [2004] ZASCA 79; 2008 (5) SA 630 (SCA) [2005] 2 All SA 560 (SCA) (17 September 2004)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
280/03
Judges
Cloete, Harms, Navsa, Brand, Heher

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in granting absolution from the instance on the basis that a delictual claim was not maintainable where a contractual claim was available. The court clarified that Lillicrap only bars delictual claims where the negligence alleged is the breach of a contractual term, and does not preclude a claim in delict for negligent misstatement causing pure economic loss when the duty arises independently of contract. The pleadings and evidence established that the appellant's claim was based on a negligent misstatement by the bank manager, not o…

Source excerpt

  • Negligent Misstatement
  • Pure Economic Loss
  • Concurrent Liability
  • Absolution From Instance
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.