South Africa Case Law

C.M.M v Discovery Life (2023-013519)

C.M.M v Discovery Life (2023-013519) [2024] ZAGPPHC 989 (26 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-013519

Judge

Williams

The applicant lacks locus standi to claim benefits under the Group Life Policy, as there is no privity of contract between her (or the deceased employee) and the respondent insurer. The policy was concluded between the respondent and the employer, with benefits payable to the employer according to its instructions. The doctrine of stipulatio alteri does not apply, as there was no acceptance of benefit by the applicant or her daughter that would make them contracting parties. The respondent's requirement for an Unabridged Birth Certificate as proof of paternity is a valid contractual precondit…

Source excerpt

• Group Life Policy
• Locus Standi
• Stipulatio Alteri
• Contractual Privity
• Specific Performance

Moreo v Coetzer t/a Berea Motors (NW12/2023)

Moreo v Coetzer t/a Berea Motors (NW12/2023) [2024] ZACONAF 10 (11 April 2024)

Court

Consumer Affairs Court

Case number

NW12/2023

Judge

KJP Kgomongwe

The court dismissed a special plea over citation, finding the consumer had contracted with Berea Motors as presented and that no prejudice arose.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Citation Of Parties
• Contractual Privity
• Special Plea
• Supplier Liability
• Consumer-protection

Crossman v Capital Alliance Group Risk and Others (34636/2020)

Crossman v Capital Alliance Group Risk and Others (34636/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 257 (21 April 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

34636/2020

Judge

Nichols

The High Court dismissed a challenge to a group life benefit payment, holding the policy did not create contractual privity with the beneficiary and that the later nomination was valid.

• Group Life Insurance
• Stipulatio Alteri
• Nomination Of Beneficiary
• Locus Standi
• Contractual Privity
• Group-life-insurance

Tramore Property Group (Pty) Ltd v Vosloorus Square CC (235/2020)

Tramore Property Group (Pty) Ltd v Vosloorus Square CC (235/2020) [2021] ZASCA 41 (13 April 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

235/2020

Judges

Mbha, Nicholls, Mbatha, Gorven, Goosen

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld specific performance, finding no valid cancellation because no local authority requirement for guarantees had arisen under the sale agreement.

• Specific Performance
• Sale Of Property Of Another
• Locus Standi
• Contractual Privity
• Services Agreement
• Repudiation

Laubscher and Another v Rustenburg Local Municipality and Another (M56/2016)

Laubscher and Another v Rustenburg Local Municipality and Another (M56/2016) [2016] ZANWHC 61 (15 December 2016)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M56/2016

Judge

R D Hendricks

The court held that the owners were not liable for 11KV electricity charges contracted by their tenant and removed the charges from their municipal account.

• Municipal Services Liability
• Electricity Supply Agreements
• Contractual Privity
• Debt Collection Policy
• Municipal-services-liability
• Electricity-supply-agreements

Georgious N.O and Others v Freyssenet Posten (Pty) Ltd and Another (5406/2014)

Georgious N.O and Others v Freyssenet Posten (Pty) Ltd and Another (5406/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 147 (6 August 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5406/2014

Judge

Ebrahim

The High Court upheld an exception to both claims, finding no pleaded contractual nexus between the plaintiffs and the subcontractor, and granted leave to amend.

• Exception To Pleading
• Contractual Privity
• Specific Performance
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Implied Terms
• Building Contracts

Babereki Consulting Engineering (Pty) Ltd v M & F Contractors CC and Another (580/11)

Babereki Consulting Engineering (Pty) Ltd v M & F Contractors CC and Another (580/11) [2011] ZANCHC 10 (17 June 2011)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

580/11

Judge

Henriques

The High Court granted a final interdict stopping a municipal construction arrangement that was not shown to comply with procurement law.

• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Municipal Contracting
• Final Interdict
• Dispute Of Fact
• Section 217 Constitution
• Contractual Privity

Volvo SA (Pty) Ltd v Yssel (17801/06)

Volvo SA (Pty) Ltd v Yssel (17801/06) [2008] ZAGPHC 109; [2008] 3 All SA 488 (W) (21 February 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

17801/06

Judge

Berger

The court found that while the respondent performed services at a high level within the applicant's organisation and owed certain fiduciary duties, those duties were expressly limited by the contractual arrangements between the applicant and Highveld. The respondent's responsibilities did not include recruitment or acquisition of staff, which was the domain of the applicant's Human Resources Department. The respondent's arrangement with Highveld to earn commissions from the transfer of IT contractors did not fall within the scope of his fiduciary obligations to the applicant. The absence of p…

Source excerpt

• Fiduciary Duty
• Secret Commissions
• Independent Contractor
• Employment Relationship
• Agency
• Contractual Privity

Southern Life Association Limited v Miller (17/2004)

Southern Life Association Limited v Miller (17/2004) [2004] ZASCA 135; [2005] 2 All SA 371 (SCA) (1 December 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

17/2004

Judges

Farlam, Scott

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent was not totally and permanently disabled under the policy and could not claim directly against the insurer.

• Insurance Policy Interpretation
• Disability Benefit Claims
• Contractual Privity
• Burden Of Proof
• Insurance-policy-interpretation
• Disability-benefits

Wynland Construction (Pty) Ltd. v Ashley-Smith and Others (64/85)

Wynland Construction (Pty) Ltd. v Ashley-Smith and Others (64/85) [1985] ZASCA 45; [1985] 2 All SA 368 (A) (29 May 1985)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

64/85

Judges

Rabie, Jansen, Corbett, Miller, Joubert

The court held that the builder had no right of retention over the owners’ properties because the owners had paid Brewland, and no enrichment at the builder’s expense was shown.

• Retention Right
• Unjust Enrichment
• Contractual Privity
• Building Contracts
• Onus Of Proof
• Retention-right