South Africa Case Law

Siertsema v Stoney Meadows Investments 27 (Pty) Ltd and Others (16845/2022)

Siertsema v Stoney Meadows Investments 27 (Pty) Ltd and Others (16845/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 50 (21 February 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16845/2022

Judge

HJ De Waal

The court found that the applicant's claim for transfer of the 50% shareholding was not supported by the evidence, as the arrangement was commercially justified and not a sham. The second sale agreement constituted a compromise, providing the applicant with a clear contractual exit and remedy, which precluded reliance on the original share transfer claim. The applicant failed to establish oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct under section 163, as exclusion from management was by agreement and he retained a contractual right to withdraw. The buyers were solvent, with no deadlock or break…

Source excerpt

• Shareholder Disputes
• Oppressive Conduct
• Winding Up Of Companies
• Contractual Compromise
• Section 163 Companies Act
• Section 81 Companies Act

Lutzkie and Others v Kilken Platinum (Pty) Ltd and Others (37252/2021)

Lutzkie and Others v Kilken Platinum (Pty) Ltd and Others (37252/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 371 (17 May 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37252/2021

Judge

Phahlamohlaka

The High Court held that a later settlement agreement compromised the section 163 application, so the applicants could not keep pursuing the original motion or amendment.

• Section 163 Companies Act
• Settlement Agreement
• Contractual Compromise
• Interim Relief
• Amendment Of Notice Of Motion
• Section-163-companies-act

Gridmark CC v Razia Trading CC (349/18)

Gridmark CC v Razia Trading CC (349/18) [2019] ZASCA 18 (25 March 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

349/18

Judges

Cachalia, Majiedt, Van der Merwe, Mocumie, Dlodlo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that no compromise was concluded because the parties’ correspondence showed a counter-offer and no unqualified acceptance.

• Contractual Compromise
• Novation
• Acceptance Of Offer
• Repudiation
• Purchase And Sale
• Interpretation Of Correspondence

Nyama v GW Bekker t/a Lichtenburg Motors (NW09/2018)

Nyama v GW Bekker t/a Lichtenburg Motors (NW09/2018) [2018] ZACONAF 15 (26 July 2018)

Court

Consumer Affairs Court

Case number

NW09/2018

Judges

J.Nkomo, K.Kgomongwe, Khula

The court found that the plaintiff, through his legal representative, accepted the defendant's offer of R 50,822.81 in full and final settlement, thereby concluding a binding compromise agreement. There was no evidence that the acceptance was made under duress or undue pressure, nor was it accepted on a 'without prejudice' basis. The court held that section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act did not apply to the circumstances, as the protections therein are relevant to the marketing, negotiation, and conclusion of consumer agreements, not to the return of goods and refund under section 56(2).…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Full And Final Settlement
• Contractual Compromise
• Refund Of Purchase Price

Incorrect Subscription (201505-0125)

Incorrect Subscription (201505-0125) [2015] ZACGSO 8 (21 September 2015)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201505-0125

The Ombud dismissed a complaint over incorrect XtraView billing, finding the complainant accepted a compromise and was not entitled to a further refund.

• Consumer Protection
• Contractual Compromise
• Refund Claims
• Consumer-protection
• Contractual-compromise
• Refund-claims

Ascent Mining Services CC v Richards Bay Minerals (3412/2011)

Ascent Mining Services CC v Richards Bay Minerals (3412/2011) [2014] ZAKZDHC 21 (2 May 2014)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

3412/2011

Judge

Vahed

The court held that a fuel-cost dispute between mining contractors had been validly compromised by a signed acknowledgement of debt and later reconciliation.

• Contractual Compromise
• Acknowledgement Of Debt
• Rectification Of Contract
• Duress And Undue Influence
• Set Off
• Costs Orders

Mantra Consulting (Pty) Limited v Valor IT CC and Others (09/35874)

Mantra Consulting (Pty) Limited v Valor IT CC and Others (09/35874) [2010] ZAGPJHC 36; [2010] 4 All SA 449 (GSJ) (7 April 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

09/35874

Judge

Mokgoatlheng

The court found that the respondent's tender and the applicant's acceptance of the cheque marked 'in full and final settlement' constituted payment of an admitted debt in respect of item C001 of Invoice No C1003, and an offer of compromise in respect of the balance of the items in that invoice. The acceptance of the cheque did not extinguish the applicant's entire contractual claim, but only those items specifically set out in Invoice No C1003. The applicant's subsequent claims for the second payment and ongoing consulting fees under the agreements were not compromised and remain enforceable,…

Source excerpt

• Contractual Compromise
• Payment In Full Settlement
• Specific Performance
• Consulting Services Dispute
• Interpretation Of Contracts