South Africa Case Law

Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd v Rustenburg Chemicals (Pty) Ltd (31693/19)

Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd v Rustenburg Chemicals (Pty) Ltd (31693/19) [2020] ZAGPJHC 127 (24 March 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

31693/19

Judge

Eichner-Visser

The court found that the sub-lease agreement commenced on 22 April 2016 and terminated on 21 April 2019. The respondent failed to exercise the renewal option in writing at least three months prior to termination, as required by the agreement. The only correspondence potentially constituting notice was the email of 15 October 2018, which did not unequivocally exercise the option but rather proposed a new lease with different terms. No new lease agreement was concluded after 31 July 2019 due to lack of consensus. The respondent's continued occupation after expiry of the sub-lease created a taci…

Source excerpt

• Sub Lease Agreement
• Option To Renew
• Tacit Lease
• Eviction
• Consensus In Contract
• Enrichment Lien

RP Logistix (Pty) Ltd v Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa (TAWUSA) and Others (JA48/14)

RP Logistix (Pty) Ltd v Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa (TAWUSA) and Others (JA48/14) [2016] ZALAC 7 (4 March 2016)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA48/14

Judges

Landman, Sutherland, Mngqibisa-Thusi

The Labour Appeal Court held that no binding voluntary retrenchment agreement was concluded and dismissed the employer’s appeal against findings of unfair dismissal.

• Voluntary Retrenchment
• Unfair Dismissal
• Collective Bargaining
• Operational Requirements
• Reinstatement
• Consensus In Contract

Mbebe v Minister of Communications and Another (31593/2014)

Mbebe v Minister of Communications and Another (31593/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 48 (26 February 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

31593/2014

Judge

N Davis

The court held that alleged settlement drafts were not binding agreements because they were unsigned, incomplete, and intended to be finalized in writing.

• Enforceability Of Settlement Agreements
• Requirement Of Signature
• Consensus In Contract
• Public Finance Management Act
• Settlement-agreements
• Contract-formation

Daimlerchrysler Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mabogaone (25939/2005)

Daimlerchrysler Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mabogaone (25939/2005) [2009] ZAGPPHC 347 (11 December 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

25939/2005

Judge

A. P. Ledwaba

High Court judgment holding the defendant liable under a finance lease agreement and rejecting an iustus error defence, with attorney-and-client costs awarded.

• Finance Lease Agreement
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Consensus In Contract
• Iustus Error Defence
• Finance-lease-agreement

Constantia Insurance Company Ltd v Compusource (Pty) Ltd (143/2004)

Constantia Insurance Company Ltd v Compusource (Pty) Ltd (143/2004) [2005] ZASCA 29; 2005 (4) SA 345 (SCA) (30 March 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

143/04

Judges

Brand, Howie, Farlam, Lewis, Van Heerden

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that although Constantia's representatives genuinely believed Rust had agreed to clause 3.5, a reasonable person in their position would have doubted that Rust intended to bind Compusource to such an onerous obligation, especially given the novelty of the insurance, the financial position of Compusource, and the absence of reference to the clause in the explanatory documents. The reasonable person would have sought confirmation from Rust regarding his understanding of clause 3.5. Since this did not occur, there was no consensus on the clause, and Compusource c…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Contracts
• Consensus In Contract
• Misrepresentation By Omission
• Enforceability Of Terms

Krapohl v Oranje Kooperasie Bpk. (625/88)

Krapohl v Oranje Kooperasie Bpk. (625/88) [1990] ZASCA 53; 1990 (3) SA 848 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 366 (A) (29 May 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

625/88

Judges

Nienaber, Hoexter, Grosskopf, Eksteen, Friedman

The court held that a statutory pledge under section 173 of the Cooperatives Act did not prevent ownership passing or justify repayment of the purchase price.

• Statutory Pledge
• Condictio Indebiti
• Transfer Of Ownership
• Consensus In Contract
• Performance Impossibility
• Statutory-pledge