South Africa Case Law

Sable Place Properties 106 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Visa Security Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (081761/2025)

Sable Place Properties 106 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Visa Security Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (081761/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 610 (24 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

081761/2025

Judge

Minnaar

The High Court granted urgent interdictory relief, found no tacit security-services contract, ordered the first respondent to vacate the premises, and awarded costs on scale C.

• Interdict
• Contractual Entitlement
• Urgent Relief
• Tacit Contract
• Security Services
• Costs Scale

Poisonwood Investments (Pty) Ltd v Meyer Van Der Walt Incorporated and Others (2024-105894)

Poisonwood Investments (Pty) Ltd v Meyer Van Der Walt Incorporated and Others (2024-105894) [2025] ZAGPPHC 574 (6 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-105894

Judge

C J van der Westhuizen

The court held that trust funds from unit sales were not assets of the insolvent estate, but were payable to Poisonwood Investments, with costs against the liquidators.

• Declaratory Relief
• Trust Funds
• Insolvency
• Contractual Entitlement
• Declaratory-relief
• Trust-funds

Howe v Platform 45 (Pty) Ltd (13158/2022)

Howe v Platform 45 (Pty) Ltd (13158/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 409 (29 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13158/2022

Judge

Minnaar

The High Court granted a partial Rule 35(7) discovery order in a contract valuation dispute, requiring production of valuation and financial documents but rejecting vague or overbroad requests.

• Discovery Of Documents
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Contractual Entitlement
• Rectification Of Contract
• Valuation Of Shares
• Rule-35-discovery

Body Corporate of Federal Industrsl Park v Pec Metering (Pty) Ltd (31013/2018)

Body Corporate of Federal Industrsl Park v Pec Metering (Pty) Ltd (31013/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 412 (22 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31013/2018

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court found an oral agreement that trust funds be held for the body corporate’s benefit and ordered PEC Metering to pay the money and interest.

• Trust Account Dispute
• Contractual Entitlement
• Remuneration Calculation
• Prescription Of Claims
• Trust-account-dispute
• Oral-contract

Phasha v Pandora Jewellery South Africa (Pty) Ltd (C91/2022)

Phasha v Pandora Jewellery South Africa (Pty) Ltd (C91/2022) [2025] ZALCCT 21; [2025] 6 BLLR 627 (LC) (7 April 2025)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C91/2022

Judge

R G Lagrange

The Labour Court dismissed a claim for unpaid bonus commission, finding the stated sales target was plainly erroneous and could not prove entitlement.

• Remuneration Disputes
• Bonus Commission
• Contractual Entitlement
• Costs Award
• Bonus-commission
• Remuneration-disputes

Kaykaysim Projects (Pty) Ltd v Dihlabeng Local Municipality (1355/2024)

Kaykaysim Projects (Pty) Ltd v Dihlabeng Local Municipality (1355/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 16 (23 January 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1355/2024

Judge

Greyling-Coetzer AJ

The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim seeking retention money, finding the plaintiff had not pleaded enough contract facts to sustain the claim.

• Exception To Pleadings
• Specific Performance
• Contractual Entitlement
• Retention Money
• Uniform Rule 18
• Exception-to-pleadings

Rudolf John Fuls t/a John Rudolf Fuls Legal Cost Consultant v Glinnis Cohen Attorneys (19386/2022)

Rudolf John Fuls t/a John Rudolf Fuls Legal Cost Consultant v Glinnis Cohen Attorneys (19386/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1208 (25 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19386/2022

Judge

ML Senyatsi

The High Court granted leave to amend a particulars of claim in a fee dispute involving legal cost consulting services, finding the objections premature and triable.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Exception Procedure
• Contractual Entitlement
• Legal Practice Act
• Locus Standi
• Amendment-of-pleadings

Mfazi v Z and Z Ngogodo Inc. Attorneys (2023/126346)

Mfazi v Z and Z Ngogodo Inc. Attorneys (2023/126346) [2024] ZAGPJHC 985 (2 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/126346

Judge

Graves AJ

Opposed summary judgment application over payment of taxed legal fees was refused after the court found a genuine dispute about the fee agreement and when payment became due.

• Summary Judgment
• Taxed Costs
• Legal Practitioners Fees
• Allocatur
• Contractual Entitlement
• Summary-judgment

IMATU and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (JS836/18)

IMATU and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (JS836/18) [2024] ZALCJHB 9 (10 January 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS836/18

Judge

N P Voyi

The applicants bore the onus to prove their entitlement to a 70% post-retirement medical aid subsidy, either by virtue of statutory or contractual right or by an established practice. No evidence was led by any of the 13 remaining individual applicants regarding their dates of employment or the existence of the claimed entitlement. The alleged practice was not pleaded and, even when allowed into evidence, was not substantiated by credible testimony or documentation. The statutory basis for the entitlement was repealed, and no evidence was presented to show that any contractual right survived…

Source excerpt

• Post Retirement Medical Aid Subsidy
• Onus Of Proof
• Contractual Entitlement
• Municipal Employment Transfer
• Collective Bargaining
• Statutory Repeal

Samonty Projects (Pty) Ltd v Persevcon Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Others (UM105/22)

Samonty Projects (Pty) Ltd v Persevcon Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Others (UM105/22) [2023] ZANWHC 222 (27 November 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM105/22

Judge

Mfenyana

The court found that the applicant was contractually entitled to payment of R652,310.37, representing 90% of the invoice amount paid by the Department of Rural Development to the first respondent. The respondents' refusal to pay, based on an alleged set-off and breach, was unsupported by evidence and amounted to unlawful self-help. The respondents failed to afford the applicant an opportunity to remedy any alleged breach, as required by the agreement, and the main contract with the department had not been terminated. The court held that the respondents could not lawfully withhold payment and…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Self Help
• Contractual Entitlement
• Costs Award