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
FLM SA (Pty) Limited v Sequence Logistics (Pty) Limited (2023/061832) [2025] ZAGPJHC 231 (6 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed an exception to a damages claim arising from alleged loss of warehoused beef stock, holding the particulars of claim were adequate.
Kwagga Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Member of Executive Council for Roads and Transport of Gauteng Provincial and Others (6577/20219) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1100 (25 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed consolidated challenges to an NEC 3 adjudicator’s award, holding the award was not reviewable and the claims were unproven or out of time.
Blatew Security (Pty) Ltd v Matjhabeng Local Municipality (3494/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 316 (11 October 2024)
Summary judgment was refused in a municipal payment claim because the defendant raised a legally arguable time-bar and prescription defence under the SLA.
CCN Boerdery BK v ABSA Versekeringsmaatskappy BPK (2622/2015) [2024] ZANCHC 98 (4 October 2024)
The High Court upheld an insurer’s special plea that a claim was time barred under the policy, and dismissed the insured’s claim with costs.
Cohvest 67 CC t/a Gubevu Management Services and Another v Mpumalanga Department of Public Works and Transport (2257/2018) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 39 (7 June 2024)
The Court found that Cohvest was aware of all material facts necessary to institute its claim as early as 20 October 2013, when the Department refused to proceed with the second intake of learner contractors. Prescription began to run from that date, and the claim prescribed in October 2016, well before the summons was served in August 2018. The contractual time-bar in Clause 14 further limited actions to one year from accrual, which Cohvest failed to observe. Additionally, Cohvest did not serve the statutory notice within six months as required by section 3 of the Institution of Legal Procee…
Source excerpt
Samancor Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Samancor Chrome Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (357/2020) [2021] ZASCA 60; [2021] 3 All SA 342 (SCA); 2021 (6) SA 380 (SCA) (24 May 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion under s 8 of the Arbitration Act to grant an extension of time for the respondents to initiate arbitration proceedings. The respondents could not have known of the tax claim before the expiry of the time-bar due to the appellants' late and inaccurate submission of the tax return. The delay in bringing the s 8 application was not fatal, as the respondents had raised the issue promptly in pleadings and the appellants suffered no relevant prejudice. The time-bar clause was subject to s 8, and the hardship to…
Source excerpt
WK Construction (Pty) Limited v Rowland and Others (8186/2016) [2020] ZAKZDHC 8 (4 March 2020)
The court found that by 22 August 2013, the plaintiff was aware of the fraud perpetrated by Mr Maartens, the damages suffered, and the fact that the defendants had issued unqualified audit reports during the relevant periods. The plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to the debt, and prescription began to run from that date. The argument that the claim against the auditors was contingent upon recovery from Mr Maartens was rejected; the claims were separate and distinct, and the plaintiff's right of action against the auditors accrued when t…
Source excerpt
G4s Cash Solutions SA (Pty) Limited v Zandspruit CAsh and Carry (Pty) Limited and Another (A5039/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 320 (28 May 2015)
The court held that a contractual time-bar in a cash security agreement did not apply to delictual claims, so the special plea of prescription failed.
Zandspruit Cash & carry (Pty) Ltd and Another v G4s Cash Solutions SA (Pty) Ltd (23675/12) [2013] ZAGPJHC 292 (20 November 2013)
The High Court held that a contractual time-bar did not apply to delictual claims for pure economic loss, and dismissed the defendant’s special plea.
Guardforce International Transportation Limited v Khulani Fidelity Services Group (Pty) Limited (2006/21173) [2010] ZAGPJHC 16 (26 March 2010)
High Court appeal on whether leave to amend particulars of claim should be granted to seek declaratory relief under section 19(1)(a)(iii).
Explore more
