South Africa Case Law

Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd v Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd and Another (099/2023; 150/24)

Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd v Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd and Another (099/2023; 150/24) [2025] ZASCA 64 (20 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

099/23; 150/24

Judges

Meyer, Matojane, Unterhalter, Phatshoane, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the three on-demand guarantees issued by Power Guarantees in favour of Set Square Developments were autonomous instruments, independent of the underlying construction contracts. The court found that Set Square complied with the requirements for calling up the guarantees by providing written demands and notices of termination due to contractor default. Power Guarantees' defences based on the alleged non-existence or difference of the underlying contracts were rejected, as the parties to those contracts performed their obligations and did not dispute their…

Source excerpt

• On Demand Guarantees
• Performance Bonds
• Fraud Exception
• Contractual Autonomy
• Mistake In Contract
• Unconscionability Exception

Erven 176 Wadeville (Pty) Ltd v JC Impellers (Pty) Ltd and Another (2025/019090)

Erven 176 Wadeville (Pty) Ltd v JC Impellers (Pty) Ltd and Another (2025/019090) [2025] ZAGPJHC 180 (3 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/019090

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court held that the matter was not urgent and that the applicant's concerns regarding jurisdiction and procedural overlap between the arbitration and pending court proceedings should be addressed before the arbitrator, as provided for in the arbitration agreement. The arbitrator is empowered to determine their own jurisdiction and to postpone proceedings if necessary. The court emphasised the importance of upholding the parties' contractual autonomy and the arbitral bargain, noting that judicial intervention is only warranted where the validity of the arbitration agreement is in question.…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Interdict
• Arbitration Stay
• Eviction Proceedings
• Contractual Autonomy

Level 7 Restaurant (Pty) Ltd t/a Level 7 v Signature Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd (2023/051229)

Level 7 Restaurant (Pty) Ltd t/a Level 7 v Signature Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd (2023/051229) [2024] ZAGPJHC 944 (25 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/051229

Judge

S D J Wilson

Section 28 of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 cannot reasonably be interpreted to permit appeals to the High Court against arbitral awards, even if the parties agree otherwise. The Act establishes a system of private dispute resolution, and the powers conferred on courts are limited to policing the boundaries and facilitating arbitral proceedings, not reviewing the merits of awards. Allowing appeals to the High Court would undermine the speed, economy, privacy, and finality intended by the Act. The Bill of Rights does not require the law to give effect to contractual choices that are legally m…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act Section 28
• Contract Rectification
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Appeal From Arbitral Award
• Contractual Autonomy
• Bill Of Rights Section 34

Bright Idea Projects 66 (Pty) Ltd t/a All Fuels v Roseville Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Sondela Service Station (4881/2022P)

Bright Idea Projects 66 (Pty) Ltd t/a All Fuels v Roseville Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Sondela Service Station (4881/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 105 (21 June 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

4881/2022P

Judge

ZP Nkosi

The court found that the franchise agreement between the parties expired by effluxion of time after a two-year extension, and no further agreement was concluded. The respondent's continued occupation of the premises was unlawful, and its refusal to vacate constituted holding over. The referral to arbitration under section 12B of the Petroleum Products Act was without merit, as the arbitrator cannot create a contract or override ownership rights. The applicant, as owner and successor to the franchise rights, was entitled to eviction. The respondent failed to demonstrate any unfair or unreasona…

Source excerpt

• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Eviction
• Holding Over
• Petroleum Products Act
• Contractual Autonomy

Canton Trading 17 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cube Architects v Fanti Bekker Hattingh N O (479/2020)

Canton Trading 17 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cube Architects v Fanti Bekker Hattingh N O (479/2020) [2021] ZASCA 163; 2022 (4) SA 420 (SCA) (1 December 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

479/2020

Judges

Saldulker, Mathopo, Mocumie, Phatshoane, Unterhalter

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that there was a thorough dispute of fact as to whether the parties had concluded a binding arbitration agreement. The high court erred by deciding the existence of the arbitration agreement on motion, without referring the matter to oral evidence or considering the principles of separability and competence-competence. The PSP referenced the AFSA rules, which empower arbitrators to determine their own jurisdiction, but Canton Trading disputed ever consenting to those terms. Where the very existence of the arbitration agreement is challenged, the court must not…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Agreement Existence
• Competence Competence
• Separability Doctrine
• Motion Proceedings
• Contractual Autonomy

Samancor Chrome Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another v Samancor Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others (42659/18)

Samancor Chrome Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another v Samancor Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others (42659/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 370; [2019] 4 All SA 906 (GJ) (24 October 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42659/18

Judge

P.A. Meyer

High Court extended a contractual arbitration time-bar where tax liability was discovered only after expiry, finding undue hardship under section 8.

• Arbitration Time Bar
• Undue Hardship
• Contractual Autonomy
• Indemnity Claims
• Interpretation Of Arbitration Act
• Tax Liability

Zalisa and Others v South African Social Security Agency and Others (82073/2018)

Zalisa and Others v South African Social Security Agency and Others (82073/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 4 (29 January 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

82073/2018

Judge

H.J Fabricius

The court held that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to final interdictory or declaratory relief. While the urgency and vulnerability of social grant beneficiaries were acknowledged, the statutory system for payment of grants, including the requirement for in-person consent via Annexure C forms, was properly authorized and implemented for rational reasons. The applicants did not follow the prescribed administrative review process under PAJA and could not rely on the principle of legality as an alternative. The court found no illegality or grounds to override the statutory auth…

Source excerpt

• Social Grants
• Regulation 21 Compliance
• Urgent Interdict
• Biometric Consent
• Administrative Action Review
• Contractual Autonomy

Zondi v City of Johannesburg and Others (J 2461/12)

Zondi v City of Johannesburg and Others (J 2461/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 39 (17 February 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 2461/12

Judge

Ralefatane

The Labour Court held that the contract’s private arbitration clause was enforceable, but the dispute should be finalised by the SALGBC rather than heard by the Court.

• Private Arbitration Clause
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Contractual Autonomy
• Forum Selection
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Klassen v Blue Lagoon Hotel and Conference Centre (2154/2011)

Klassen v Blue Lagoon Hotel and Conference Centre (2154/2011) [2014] ZAECGHC 117; [2015] 2 All SA 482 (ECG) (12 September 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

2154/2011

Judge

Sandi

The court found that the defendant was not negligent, as it had a reasonable and effective cleaning regime in place for the toilet facilities, and there was no evidence that the system failed on the day of the incident. The plaintiff's evidence regarding the absence of a gate and disclaimer notices was rejected in favour of the defendant's manager's testimony and photographic evidence. Even if negligence were established, the plaintiff was contractually bound by the exemption clause in the registration card and the disclaimer notices, which excluded the defendant's liability for personal inju…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Occupier Liability
• Exemption Clause
• Public Policy
• Contractual Autonomy

D & E Trading (Pty) Ltd v Hilton Village Centre CC and Others (1342/13)

D & E Trading (Pty) Ltd v Hilton Village Centre CC and Others (1342/13) [2013] ZAKZPHC 12 (19 March 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

1342/13

Judge

D Pillay

The court held that the restraint clause in the cancellation agreement does not extend to franchisees or buying partners of opposition supermarket groups, but only to actual members of such groups as understood in corporate law. The second respondent, while a franchisee of OK Franchise Division, is not a member of the Shoprite group in the sense contemplated by the restraint. The applicant provided the wording of the restraint and could have expressly included franchisees if intended. The first respondent was not aware of any franchise agreement at the time of leasing, and there is no evidenc…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Lease Interpretation
• Franchise Relationships
• Contractual Autonomy
• Constitutional Scrutiny