South Africa Case Law

Navigare Securities (Pty) Limited and Another v Vickers and Peters Financial Planning (Pty) Ltd and Another (29108/22)

Navigare Securities (Pty) Limited and Another v Vickers and Peters Financial Planning (Pty) Ltd and Another (29108/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1344 (13 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29108/22

Judge

Kubushi

The High Court dismissed an exception to amended particulars of claim in a group life insurance dispute, finding the pleaded case sufficiently disclosed issues for trial.

• Insurance Contracts
• Group Life Policy
• Exception Procedure
• Locus Standi
• Condition Precedent
• Fictional Fulfilment

Liberty Group Limited and Others v Le Looks Hair and Beauty Parlour CC t/a Le Looks Hair and Beauty and Another (031742/2023)

Liberty Group Limited and Others v Le Looks Hair and Beauty Parlour CC t/a Le Looks Hair and Beauty and Another (031742/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 654 (3 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

031742/2023

Judge

A Mtembu

Summary judgment in a commercial lease dispute was refused because the pleadings were unclear, a suspensive condition was not pleaded, and standing was questioned.

• Summary Judgment
• Lease Agreement
• Locus Standi
• Condition Precedent
• Pleading Requirements
• Summary-judgment

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa v van der Merwe and Others (20420-2020)

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa v van der Merwe and Others (20420-2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 901 (14 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20420/2020

Judge

Adams

The court held that the guarantee agreement between the applicant and the first to third respondents created an autonomous obligation, independent of the underlying contract with Steval Engineering. The liability of the guarantors was triggered by the issuance of a Guarantee Claim Notice, which constituted a condition precedent to the applicant's claim. Prescription only began to run from the date the Guarantee Claim Notice was delivered, not from the date the underlying debt became due. The application was instituted within the prescription period, and the respondents' defence of prescriptio…

Source excerpt

• Demand Guarantee
• Performance Guarantee
• Prescription Act
• Contractual Liability
• Condition Precedent
• Attorney And Client Costs

ABSA Bank Limited v Singh N.O. and Others (5034/2020P)

ABSA Bank Limited v Singh N.O. and Others (5034/2020P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 40 (12 April 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

5034/2020P

Judge

Mossop

The court held sureties liable on deeds of suretyship, finding no discharge from the bank’s failure to obtain additional security before advancing the loan.

• Suretyship
• Loan Agreement
• Condition Precedent
• Prejudice To Surety
• Certificate Of Balance
• Contractual Interpretation

McGrane v Cape Royale The Residence (Pty) Ltd (831/2020)

McGrane v Cape Royale The Residence (Pty) Ltd (831/2020) [2021] ZASCA 139 (6 October 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

831/2020

Judges

Saldulker, Mathopo, Plasket, Kgoele, Potterill

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a subject-to-bond clause did not apply because the purchaser did not need finance and had waived it by paying cash.

• Agreement Of Sale
• Condition Precedent
• Waiver
• Specific Performance
• Contract-interpretation
• Condition-precedent

Kaleida Project Management Company (Pty) Ltd v Kalagadi Managese (Pty) Ltd and Another (A352/2016)

Kaleida Project Management Company (Pty) Ltd v Kalagadi Managese (Pty) Ltd and Another (A352/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 760 (20 February 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A352/2016

Judges

N Ranchod, M Mavundla, LM Molopa-Sethosa

Appeal dismissed: emails about payment dates were not an unequivocal acknowledgement of debt, and the Letter of Award’s condition precedent was never met.

• Acknowledgement Of Debt
• Liquid Document
• Condition Precedent
• Motion Proceedings
• Acknowledgement-of-debt
• Liquid-document

Secure Electronics v City of Cape Town (24107/2012)

Secure Electronics v City of Cape Town (24107/2012) [2017] ZAWCHC 95 (13 September 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

24107/2012

Judge

Kusevitsky AJ

The High Court held that a construction delay claim had not prescribed because the contractual claim process was only completed when the engineer repudiated it in November 2011.

• Prescription Act
• Construction Contracts
• Delay Claims
• Condition Precedent
• Payment Certificates
• Prescription-act

Crook v Gouws (40658/2016)

Crook v Gouws (40658/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 200 (19 May 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

40658/2016

Judge

Tlhapi VV

The High Court dismissed an exception challenging a claim for the balance of a sale agreement, holding the plaintiff could sue for specific performance after the payment period expired.

• Specific Performance
• Acceleration Clause
• Condition Precedent
• Breach Of Contract
• Specific-performance
• Acceleration-clause

Dodo Traders CC v Standard Bank of South Africa: Vehicle and Asset Finance Division (6540/2015)

Dodo Traders CC v Standard Bank of South Africa: Vehicle and Asset Finance Division (6540/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1081 (14 December 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

6540/2015

Judge

AC Basson

The High Court rescinded a default judgment after finding the applicant gave a reasonable explanation for default and disclosed a prima facie defence.

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Instalment Sale Agreement
• Condition Precedent
• Credit Facility
• Bona Fide Defence
• Rescission-of-default-judgment

Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd (1040/2015)

Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd (1040/2015) [2016] ZASCA 135 (29 September 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1040/2015

Judges

Bosielo, Theron, Willis, Swain, Dlodlo

The majority held that the debt became due when the loan was advanced to the respondent, and prescription commenced from that date. Clause 2.3 of the agreement, which required written demand and a 30-day notice period, was interpreted as a procedural term for repayment, not a condition precedent for the debt to become due. The appellant's failure to make demand in the specific form required by the contract meant the claim was not properly enforceable, but this did not affect the running of prescription. As more than three years had elapsed since the loan was advanced and no interruption of pr…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Loan Agreement Interpretation
• Condition Precedent
• Liquidation Application