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
Dr Fekeni and Others v Lombard Insurance Company Limited and Another (43891/19) [2024] ZAGPJHC 84 (2 February 2024)
The High Court dismissed claims under a construction guarantee and a counterclaim, holding the demand was non-compliant and business rescue did not trigger the clause relied on.
SMBT (Proprietary) Limited v Hollard Insurance Company Limited and Others (2022-022086) [2024] ZAGPJHC 13 (12 January 2024)
The court found that the guarantee did not expire upon the issue of the final completion certificate, but only upon payment of the full amount certified in the final payment certificate. The guarantee was autonomous and created a primary obligation on Hollard to pay the applicant upon default by the contractor. The respondents' literal interpretation was rejected as it would render the guarantee meaningless and defeat its commercial purpose. The court applied established principles of contract interpretation, giving effect to the special provisions of the guarantee and the context provided by…
Source excerpt
Millenium Aluminium and Glass Services CC and Others v Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (693/2021) [2022] ZASCA 180 (14 December 2022)
The court held that a construction guarantee was properly called up and dismissed the appeal, finding the demand complied with the guarantee’s terms.
Naude and Another v Steyn City Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another (23867/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 464 (22 June 2022)
The High Court refused leave to appeal in a dispute over a construction guarantee and business rescue, holding there were no reasonable prospects of success.
Fast Track Contracting (Pty) Ltd v Constantia Insurance Company Limited and Others (22474/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 633 (14 December 2018)
The court held that the guarantee in question was an autonomous instrument, and liability under it was absolute provided the documentary requirements were met. The payment advice, written demands, and supporting documents complied with clause 4 of the guarantee. The change of name from Group Five Coastal to Group Five KZN did not affect the entitlement to payment, as the company remained the same juristic person. There was no suggestion of fraud, and disputes relating to the underlying construction contract were irrelevant to the guarantor's liability. Accordingly, the application for an inte…
Source excerpt
Lombard Insurance Company Limited v Stewart and Others (15923/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 91 (11 October 2016)
The High Court held that Lombard’s construction guarantee was a deed of suretyship, but the indemnity and suretyship undertakings still bound Stewart and the Bankenbrig Trust.
Granbuild (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Transport And Public Works, Western Cape and Another (5021/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 83 (5 June 2015)
The court found that the guarantee issued by Compass was a conditional guarantee, requiring the existence of a right of recovery against Granbuild in terms of clause 33 of the JBCC contract. Such a right arises only when the principal agent issues a payment certificate reflecting an amount due from Granbuild to the Department. The mere cancellation of the contract does not constitute a right of recovery for purposes of the guarantee. Since no payment certificate or final account had been issued, the Department was not entitled to demand payment under the guarantee at the time of its letter da…
Source excerpt
Lombard Insurance Company Limited v L & D Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Others (32905/13) [2014] ZAGPJHC 414 (8 December 2014)
The High Court granted Lombard Insurance’s application and ordered the respondents to repay amounts paid under a construction guarantee, with interest and costs.
Coface South Africa Insurance Co Ltd v East London Own Haven t/a Own Haven Housing Association (050/2013) [2013] ZASCA 202; [2014] 1 All SA 536 (SCA); 2014 (2) SA 382 (SCA) (2 December 2013)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the construction guarantee issued by Coface was unconditional and autonomous, and must be honoured upon proper demand by the beneficiary, regardless of disputes under the principal construction contract. The only permissible defence to payment under such a guarantee is fraud, which was not alleged or proven in this case. The court found that the majority decision in Dormell Properties v Renasa Insurance NNO was clearly wrong and reaffirmed the established principle that disputes relating to the underlying contract do not affect the liability of the guaran…
Source excerpt
First Rand Bank Ltd v Brera Investments CC (385/2012) [2013] ZASCA 25; 2013 (5) SA 556 (SCA) (25 March 2013)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the payment guarantee issued by First Rand Bank was an independent obligation, not accessory to the underlying contract between the respondent and the contractor. Liability under the guarantee arose upon the respondent's compliance with the demand procedure set out in clause 3, specifically the failure of the contractor to issue a payment certificate within seven days of demand. The subsequent issuance of a payment certificate for a lesser amount did not affect the appellant's liability, as the trigger event for payment had already occurred. The court rej…
Source excerpt
Explore more
