South Africa Case Law

Cellsecure Monitoring and Response (Pty) Ltd and Others v South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Limited (A201/2023; 21647/2021)

Cellsecure Monitoring and Response (Pty) Ltd and Others v South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Limited (A201/2023; 21647/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 98 (31 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A201/2023; 21647/2021

Judges

Oosthuizen-Senekal, Mngqibisa-Thusi, Wanless

The High Court dismissed an appeal against summary judgment and rectification, holding that the appellants failed to disclose a bona fide defence under Rule 32.

• Summary Judgment
• Rectification Of Contract
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 32
• Contractual Mistake
• Certificate Of Balance
• Summary-judgment

SACTWU Investments Group (Pty) Ltd v Sekunjalo Independent Media (Pty) Ltd and Another (6290/19)

SACTWU Investments Group (Pty) Ltd v Sekunjalo Independent Media (Pty) Ltd and Another (6290/19) [2024] ZAWCHC 110 (24 April 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6290/19

Judge

O'Sullivan AJ

The court found that SIG's representative, Mr Kriel, had actual authority under the November 2017 board resolution to sign the subordination agreement, which was necessary for the anticipated Sagarmatha listing. The agreement was a standard auditor's subordination agreement, and its terms were clear and indefinite, subordinating SIG's loan claim until SIM became solvent. The court held that SIG could not avoid the agreement on grounds of mistake or misrepresentation, as Mr Kriel read the document before signing and relied on his own understanding and advice. The caveat subscriptor rule applie…

Source excerpt

• Loan Agreement
• Subordination Agreement
• In Duplum Rule
• Authority Of Directors
• Misrepresentation
• Contractual Mistake

Absa Bank Limited v Sawyer (2018/17056)

Absa Bank Limited v Sawyer (2018/17056) [2018] ZAGPJHC 662 (14 December 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/17056

Judge

H Van Eeden

Summary judgment was granted for Absa on mortgage debt, and the defendant’s primary residence was declared specially executable with a reserve price set.

• Summary Judgment
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Primary Residence Executability
• Rule 46a Compliance
• Contractual Mistake
• Reserve Price Setting

AECI Limited v Laufs (212/17)

AECI Limited v Laufs (212/17) [2017] ZANWHC 87 (31 August 2017)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

212/17

Judge

Gutta

The High Court granted summary judgment for AECI on an acknowledgment of debt, rejecting lis alibi pendens and finding no bona fide defence.

• Acknowledgment Of Debt
• Summary Judgment
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Contractual Mistake
• National Credit Act
• Summary-judgment

Automated Office Technology (Pty) Ltd t/a Assetfin Financial Solutions v Bestmade 160 CC and Others (A123/2015; A124/2015)

Automated Office Technology (Pty) Ltd t/a Assetfin Financial Solutions v Bestmade 160 CC and Others (A123/2015; A124/2015) [2017] ZAWCHC 3 (17 January 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A123/2015; A124/2015

Judges

A Le Grange, M Sher

Appeal over rental finance agreements: the court upheld the PABX claim, rejected the photocopier claim, and applied caveat subscriptor and mutual mistake principles.

• Contractual Mistake
• Misrepresentation
• Suretyship
• Acceleration Clause
• Penalty Clause
• Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus

Nedbank Limited v Chapter II Farm (Pty) Ltd and Others (31150/11)

Nedbank Limited v Chapter II Farm (Pty) Ltd and Others (31150/11) [2016] ZAGPPHC 228 (12 April 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31150/11

Judge

J W Louw

The High Court held that Nedbank failed to prove the suretyships covered Farm’s overdraft debt, finding no consensus ad idem on the scope of liability.

• Suretyship Liability
• Consensus Ad Idem
• Rectification Of Contracts
• General Law Amendment Act
• Contractual Mistake
• Suretyship-liability

Nedbank Limited v Major Truck And Bus Spares CC and Another (28176/2011)

Nedbank Limited v Major Truck And Bus Spares CC and Another (28176/2011) [2015] ZAGPJHC 133 (7 July 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28176/2011

Judge

Matojane

The court found that the Second Defendant signed the Master Rental Agreement in several places, including a visually separate section for suretyship, and did not read the agreement before signing. The evidence showed that the agreement was completed in full when signed, and the Second Defendant's claim that it was blank was unsupported, as he did not testify nor call corroborating witnesses. The court held that the caveat subscriptor rule applies, binding the Second Defendant to the terms of the agreement, including the suretyship. The court rejected the argument regarding lack of spousal con…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship
• Certificate Of Indebtedness
• Matrimonial Property Act
• Contractual Mistake
• Enforceability Of Blank Documents

Hillhouse v Kruuse (83/2015)

Hillhouse v Kruuse (83/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 54 (14 May 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

83/2015

Judge

Plasket

Summary judgment was granted on an acknowledgment of debt where the defendant’s alleged mistake and National Credit Act challenge failed.

• Summary Judgment
• Acknowledgment Of Debt
• Parol Evidence Rule
• National Credit Act
• Contractual Mistake
• Summary-judgment

Price binding (2014423899)

Price binding (2014423899) [2014] ZACGSO 15 (9 May 2014)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

2014423899

Judge

Bonita Hughes

The Ombud found that the applicant received the same price quotation on three separate occasions and confirmed the price with the supplier before making payment. There was no evidence that the applicant knew or should have known of the supplier's mistake. The applicant did not act unconscionably or attempt to 'snatch at a bargain' in the legal sense. The supplier failed to prove that the applicant was aware of the error or acted improperly. Accordingly, the contract is valid and binding, and the supplier is obliged to deliver the goods at the quoted and paid price.

Source excerpt

• Contractual Mistake
• Consumer Protection Act
• Binding Offer
• Quotation Error

Roos v Roos en Ander (412/11)

Roos v Roos en Ander (412/11) [2012] ZASCA 136 (27 September 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

412/11

Judges

Brand, Malan, Erasmus

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a divorce settlement remained enforceable despite the appellant’s mistaken belief about pension-fund assets.

• Divorce Settlement
• Specific Performance
• Contractual Mistake
• Enforceability Of Settlement
• Pension Interest
• Costs Order