South Africa Case Law

Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Capitec Bank Holdings Limited (887/2021)

Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Capitec Bank Holdings Limited (887/2021) [2022] ZASCA 144; [2023] 1 All SA 1 (SCA) (24 October 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

887/2021

Judges

Zondi, Gorven, Hughes, Windell, Chetty

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 7.1.6.2 of the consent agreement is a binding contractual undertaking, not merely a warranty, and was freely and voluntarily agreed to by the appellants after obtaining independent legal advice. The clause restricts the appellants from instituting legal proceedings against Capitec in which they use or rely upon the 2017 Petratouch Transaction, except for claims arising from breach of the consent agreement itself. The institution of the 2020 action by the appellants, which relies on the 2017 Petratouch Transaction, constitutes a breach of this under…

Source excerpt

• Contractual Undertakings
• Specific Performance
• Public Policy
• Access To Courts
• Pactum De Non Petendo

Steyn Lyell Maeyane Attorneys v Oelofse (271/2016)

Steyn Lyell Maeyane Attorneys v Oelofse (271/2016) [2017] ZASCA 18 (23 March 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

271/2016

Judges

Leach, Tshiqi, Wallis, Mbha, Fourie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written undertaking issued by the appellant did not constitute an unconditional guarantee by the appellant itself to pay R1 million to the respondent. The undertaking, when read in context and against the factual matrix, amounted only to a confirmation of the terms of the profit sharing agreement between Abrina and the respondent, and not a personal guarantee by the appellant. The court found that the appellant did not hold funds in trust for Abrina at the relevant time and that it was improbable that the appellant would have bound itself unconditiona…

Source excerpt

• Interpretation Of Guarantee
• Contractual Undertakings
• Damages For Breach
• Admissibility Of Evidence

Odifin Life (Pty) Ltd v Jacobs and Another (J2015/2016)

Odifin Life (Pty) Ltd v Jacobs and Another (J2015/2016) [2016] ZALCJHB 378 (22 September 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2015/2016

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The court found that while Jacobs was bound by confidentiality undertakings, Odinfin failed to establish a proprietary interest in customer connections or confidential information that warranted protection through a restraint of trade. The evidence showed that relationships with customers and government officials in the Mass Retail Market were not exclusive or lasting, and the business model did not support the existence of protectable interests. The restraint sought by Odinfin was found to be aimed at stifling competition rather than protecting legitimate interests. The undertakings given by…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Confidential Information
• Enforceability Of Contracts
• Customer Connections
• Final Interdict
• Contractual Undertakings

Trans-Natal Steenkoolkorporasie Bpk. v Merwe (2) (245/83)

Trans-Natal Steenkoolkorporasie Bpk. v Merwe (2) (245/83) [1985] ZASCA 26 (21 May 1985)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

245/83

Judges

Kotze, Trengove, Cillie, Botha, Viviers

The appeal was dismissed after the court upheld findings that appellant’s officials misled farmers about future payments to secure agreement.

• Misrepresentation
• Contractual Undertakings
• Fraudulent Inducement
• Contract-law
• Fraudulent-inducement
• Witness-credibility