South Africa Case Law

Akani Building Solutions (Pty) Limited v Lebo Tebo Trading and Projects CC (2024-033125)

Akani Building Solutions (Pty) Limited v Lebo Tebo Trading and Projects CC (2024-033125) [2025] ZAGPPHC 781 (1 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-033125

Judge

J Vorster

The court found that the respondent's indebtedness to the applicant was disputed on bona fide and reasonable grounds. The respondent provided sufficient factual allegations that, if proved at trial, would constitute a good defence to the applicant's claim. The applicant impermissibly attempted to broaden its claim in reply, which was not the case the respondent was called to meet. The Badenhorst rule applies, and winding-up proceedings are not appropriate for enforcing a debt that is genuinely disputed. There was no evidence of lack of bona fides on the respondent's part. The application for…

Source excerpt

• Close Corporations Act Liquidation
• Bona Fide Dispute Of Indebtedness
• Badenhorst Rule
• Costs Award
• Contractual Dispute

Jabula Bleggings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Van Der Nist and Others (2025/108623)

Jabula Bleggings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Van Der Nist and Others (2025/108623) [2025] ZAKZPHC 69 (30 July 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

2025/108623

Judge

PC Bezuidenhout

The court found that the Applicants failed to establish urgency beyond self-created circumstances and did not satisfy the requirements for a Mareva injunction. There was no evidence that Respondents intended to dissipate assets or frustrate any claim. The property remained registered in the names of First and Second Respondents, and any claims for breach of contract or damages could be resolved in the pending action. The application was substantially similar to previous proceedings dismissed on the merits, rendering the matter res judicata. The resignation of First Respondent as director of F…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Mareva Injunction
• Buy Back Clause
• Urgent Application
• Contractual Dispute

Shaya Phansi Projects CC v Montgomery Plant Hire and Construction CC and Another (2849/2021)

Shaya Phansi Projects CC v Montgomery Plant Hire and Construction CC and Another (2849/2021) [2025] ZAMPMHC 36 (25 July 2025)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

2849/2021

Judge

Langa

The court found that the Applicant failed to establish that the default judgment was erroneously sought or granted. Service of the summons was effected at the registered address per the rules, and substantial compliance was achieved. Any confusion or prejudice resulted from the Applicant's own conduct in representing itself as a close corporation and failing to update CIPC records. The Applicant did not follow the correct procedure under Rule 31(5)(d), but this did not bar the application. However, the Applicant failed to set out a bona fide defence or good cause for rescission. The alleged d…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Service Of Process
• Rule 42
• Rule 31
• Contractual Dispute

Umzwilili Environmental Solution v Rockwood Fund 1 GP (Pty) Ltd (2025/101302)

Umzwilili Environmental Solution v Rockwood Fund 1 GP (Pty) Ltd (2025/101302) [2025] ZAGPJHC 704 (21 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/101302

Judge

Z Khan

The Court found that the Applicant failed to establish fraud on the part of the First Respondent in its demand under the guarantees. The evidence did not support a finding of fraudulent intent, as the First Respondent acted transparently and responded to requests for clarification from the banks. The computation of the amount claimed was based on the First Respondent's interpretation of the guarantee wording, and any dispute regarding the correct methodology is subject to arbitration, not judicial intervention at this stage. The Applicant's concerns about overpayment and irrecoverability were…

Source excerpt

• Demand Guarantees
• Interim Interdict
• Fraud Exception
• Contractual Dispute
• Arbitration Clause

Gcora v Ascon Engineering CC and Another (3374/2024)

Gcora v Ascon Engineering CC and Another (3374/2024) [2025] ZAECQBHC 18 (13 May 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

3374/2024

Judge

J W Eksteen

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff's supporting affidavit failed to comply with Rule 32(2)(b) by not verifying the cause of action or the facts on which the claim was based, nor did it adequately address the bona fides of the defences raised by the defendants. The defendants raised genuine disputes of fact regarding the terms of the alleged agreement for fees and the personal liability of the second defendant, which could only be resolved at trial. The court found that both defendants were entitled to leave to defend, and that the plaintiff, having known…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Contractual Dispute
• Professional Services Fee
• Suretyship Requirement
• Agency Liability

African Exploration and Mining and Finance Corporation (SOC) Limited v LME Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd (060853/2023)

African Exploration and Mining and Finance Corporation (SOC) Limited v LME Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd (060853/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 459 (30 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

060853/2023

Judge

L.A. Retief

Leave to appeal was dismissed, and the court corrected a clerical error in the contract amount under Rule 42, replacing R133,684,170 with R136,684,170.

• Leave To Appeal
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Clerical Error Variation
• Contractual Dispute
• Procurement Irregularity
• Leave-to-appeal

Johannesburg School of Flying (Pty) Ltd v Rand Airport Holdings (Pty) Ltd (2025/020033)

Johannesburg School of Flying (Pty) Ltd v Rand Airport Holdings (Pty) Ltd (2025/020033) [2025] ZAGPJHC 164 (28 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/020033

Judge

S D J Wilson

Urgent interdict granted to stop Rand Airport from grounding a flying school’s aircraft, but the school must pay increased landing fees under protest pending trial.

• Interim Interdict
• Contractual Dispute
• Payment Under Protest
• Landing Fees
• Urgency
• Costs Order

Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality v Izwelethu Cemforce CC (M509/22)

Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality v Izwelethu Cemforce CC (M509/22) [2025] ZANWHC 44 (28 February 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M509/22

Judge

A Reddy

The Court found that the relief sought by the Municipality is procedural and not substantive, and that the interests of justice require the proceedings to be stayed pending the final determination of the related review and adjudication actions. The Court emphasized its inherent power under section 173 of the Constitution to regulate its own process and protect the integrity of the judicial system. The stay is justified because the underlying disputes regarding the contract and adjudication award are unresolved, and proceeding with enforcement could result in inconsistent outcomes. The respond…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Proceedings
• Enforcement Of Adjudication Award
• Contractual Dispute
• Interests Of Justice

Risimati Steven Construction CC v University of Venda (1872/2023)

Risimati Steven Construction CC v University of Venda (1872/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 32 (20 February 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

1872/2023

Judge

Pillay

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a combined summons as an irregular step, finding Rule 30/30A non-compliance and no bar from arbitration.

• Irregular Proceedings
• Arbitration Agreement
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Rule 30 And 30a Compliance
• Contractual Dispute
• Prescription Of Claims

Urban Growth Investments (Pty) Ltd v Mesh VC (Pty) Ltd (133934/2023)

Urban Growth Investments (Pty) Ltd v Mesh VC (Pty) Ltd (133934/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1366 (27 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

133934/2023

Judge

Holland-Muter

The High Court dismissed a claim for repayment under a share sale exit clause, holding that repayment was premature because the contractual loan threshold had not been met.

• Sale Of Shares Agreement
• Loan Conversion Clause
• Contractual Dispute
• Referral To Oral Evidence
• Costs Order
• Share-sale-agreement