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
Ndebele and Another v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa and Others (2021/21687) [2024] ZAGPJHC 470 (10 May 2024)
Leave to appeal was dismissed. The court held the new pactum commissorium argument could not fairly be raised on appeal and would not likely succeed.
AHMR Hospitality (Pty) Ltd t/a Bakenhof Winelands Venue v Da Silva (A161/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 206; 2024 (3) SA 100 (WCC) (15 August 2023)
High Court appeal over a non-refundable wedding deposit after Covid-19 cancellation. Summary judgment stood because the appellant pleaded no bona fide defence.
MEC for the Department of Transport, KwaZulu-Natal v Raubex KZN (Pty) Ltd and Another (6677/2020) [2021] ZAKZPHC 77 (8 June 2021)
The court dismissed an application to declare a contractual time-bar unenforceable, finding insufficient facts to show unfairness or public policy grounds.
Qhibi v MiWay Insurance Ltd (634/2017) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 12 (12 May 2021)
The High Court upheld MiWay’s special plea, finding the insured sued too late under the policy time-bar and failed to show enforcement was unfair or unreasonable.
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Gounden and Another (19577/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 136 (28 October 2020)
The High Court referred a bank’s claim on surety guarantees to trial after finding serious factual disputes about alleged prejudicial conduct and public policy.
National Health Laboratory Service v Van Vuuren (2010/41313) [2020] ZAGPJHC 212 (10 September 2020)
The court found that the penalty clause in the employment contract was a valid penalty stipulation under the Conventional Penalties Act. However, the stipulated amount of R2 million was subject to moderation, as the Act empowers the court to reduce penalties that are out of proportion to the actual prejudice suffered. The court accepted the plaintiff's calculation of training costs, which amounted to R2,059,403, and credited the defendant for the five months she worked as a specialist, reducing the penalty to R1,630,445. The court held that this amount was fair, just, and equitable, reflectin…
Source excerpt
Beadica 231 CC and Others v Trustees for the time being of the Oregon Trust and Others (CCT109/19) [2020] ZACC 13; 2020 (5) SA 247 (CC); 2020 (9) BCLR 1098 (CC) (17 June 2020)
The majority held that the applicants failed to discharge the onus of demonstrating that enforcement of the lease renewal clauses would be contrary to public policy. The renewal clauses were clear, simple, and understandable, and the applicants did not provide a sufficient explanation for their failure to comply. The harsh outcome of eviction and business collapse, absent such explanation, was not enough to render enforcement contrary to public policy. The court reaffirmed that public policy is informed by constitutional values, but that abstract notions of fairness, reasonableness, and good…
Source excerpt
Barker v Altrisk, A Division of Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited (23841/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 197 (22 July 2016)
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with both the policy and section 52 of the Long-Term Insurance Act by not notifying the applicant timeously of the non-payment of the November 2012 premium. The respondent delayed notification until both the November and December 2012 premiums were in arrears, which was contrary to the statutory and contractual requirements that notice be given for each missed payment within a reasonable time. This failure deprived the applicant of a reasonable opportunity to pay the arrears and prevent the lapse. The respondent's insistence on strict compl…
Source excerpt
Bredenkamp and Others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (599/09) [2010] ZASCA 75; 2010 (4) SA 468 (SCA) ; 2010 (9) BCLR 892 (SCA) ; [2010] 4 All SA 113 (SCA) (27 May 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the bank was entitled to terminate the banking relationship with the appellants on reasonable notice in terms of both express and implied contractual rights. The court rejected the argument that fairness is a free-standing requirement for the exercise of a contractual right, finding that unless the enforcement of a contract implicates an identified constitutional value or public policy consideration, there is no basis to refuse enforcement on grounds of fairness alone. The appellants conceded the validity of the contractual term and did not identify any c…
Source excerpt
Dreameworks Investments 138 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Brettchneider and Another (10445/2006) [2007] ZAGPHC 354 (23 February 2007)
The High Court held that a 36-month, nationwide restraint of trade in a pest control franchise dispute was too wide and unsupported by protectable interests.
Explore more
