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
Tunica Trading 104 v City of Mbombela (3550/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 42 (23 May 2025)
Summary judgment was refused in a municipal payment dispute because the claim was not shown to be liquidated and the defendant raised a bona fide defence.
Lonerock Spartan Group JV v Minister of National Department of Public Works and Infrastructure and Others (2023/067555) [2025] ZAGPPHC 508 (16 May 2025)
The court ordered payment of certified construction claim amounts and interest, finding substantial compliance with notice requirements and allowing Covid-19 officer costs.
Midiro Civils and Construction CC and Another v Engineerex (Pty) Ltd and Another (HCAA03/2024 ; A5472/2018) [2025] ZALMPPHC 46 (14 March 2025)
The High Court overturned a refusal to compel an engineer to issue a payment certificate under a construction contract, holding the contract required certification within seven days.
Imvula Roads and Civils (Pty) Ltd and Others v Holland Insurance Co. Ltd and Another (2024-104602) [2025] ZAGPJHC 12 (14 January 2025)
The court found that the guarantees in question are on-demand guarantees, requiring only a written demand and notice of termination from the beneficiary to trigger payment. The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to interdict payment, as they did not prove fraud or unconscionable conduct on the part of the second respondent. The court held that disputes regarding the validity of the contract termination are irrelevant to the guarantor's obligation to pay under an on-demand guarantee. The fraud exception is narrowly construed and was not established on the facts. The court furth…
Source excerpt
Alto Management CC v Wingtip Crossing Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (59545/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1113 (29 October 2024)
The court found that Wingtip's grounds for appeal were a repetition of those previously considered and dismissed in the main judgment. The authorities cited by Wingtip were distinguished on the basis that the JBCC Agreement at issue did not contain a clause making full performance a condition precedent for payment, unlike the contracts in those cases. Upon lawful termination of the contract, interim payment certificates relied upon by Wingtip ceased to have legal effect and could not sustain a claim for payment. The court applied the stricter test under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts…
Source excerpt
Eskom Holdings Soc LTD v Babcock Ntuthuko Engineering (Pty) Ltd (A2023/099598) [2024] ZAGPJHC 990 (3 October 2024)
The High Court held that an adjudicator’s award remained enforceable pending arbitration, dismissed Eskom’s jurisdiction and payment objections, and ordered costs against Eskom.
Gap Infrastructure Corporation (Pty) Ltd previously named Barzani Development (Pty) Ltd v Oxy Trading 295 (Pty) Ltd t/a Devan Lotter Construction (M483/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 246 (25 September 2024)
The High Court enforced an adjudicator’s award, ordering payment, interest, and attorney-and-own-client costs after rejecting delay and review-based objections.
Reder Construction (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure of the Republic of South Africa and Another (4215/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 300 (17 September 2024)
The court held that COVID-19 lockdown regulations did not create supervening impossibility and ordered payment of the contractor’s claimed additional costs.
Group Five Construction Pty Ltd v Fikeni A.O. (43891/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 448 (7 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed Group Five’s application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospect of success where the final certificate still identified defects to be remedied.
Mmamoleboge Investments CC and Other v Crimson Properties 351 (Pty) Ltd and Others (23731/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 303 (4 April 2024)
The court found that the Plaintiffs were appointed as subcontractors under the JBCC agreement and were instructed by the Department to remain on site during a nine-month cessation for reasons beyond their control. The Plaintiffs submitted claims for standing time and contract adjustment, which were approved and paid by the Department to the First Defendant. The First Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs the amounts due and did not provide credible evidence to support its defences of poor workmanship, prescription, or full and final settlement. The court rejected the First Defendant's argume…
Source excerpt
Explore more
