South Africa Case Law

Spar Group Limited and Others v Twelve Gods Supermarket (Pty) Ltd and Others (1100/2022)

Spar Group Limited and Others v Twelve Gods Supermarket (Pty) Ltd and Others (1100/2022) [2025] ZASCA 7; 2025 (3) SA 137 (SCA) (30 January 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1100/2022

Judges

Mabindla-Boqwana, Kgoele, Baartman, Dolamo, Masipa

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the credit facilities agreement between SPAR and the Giannacopoulos Group constituted an ongoing contractual relationship, not a series of discrete offers. The discretion to vary credit terms under clause 5 was subject to the arbitrio boni viri standard, requiring SPAR to act reasonably, honestly, and for a legitimate purpose. The evidence showed that SPAR's reasons for altering the credit and drop shipment terms—alleged financial instability and compliance issues—were not substantiated and did not justify the changes. The timing and nature of the alterat…

Source excerpt

• Contractual Discretion
• Arbitrio Boni Viri
• Variation Of Contract
• Credit Facilities
• Good Faith
• Termination Of Membership

Standard Bank of South Africa v Zwelothando Minerals and Resources (Pty) Ltd (11490/2017)

Standard Bank of South Africa v Zwelothando Minerals and Resources (Pty) Ltd (11490/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 914 (10 April 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

11490/2017

Judge

E.M. Kubushi

The court struck an urgent winding-up application from the roll, holding that the applicant had not properly established urgency and that key allegations were unsubstantiated.

• Urgent Application
• Winding Up
• Credit Facilities
• Breach Of Settlement Agreement
• Urgent-application
• Winding-up

Paarl Web Gauteng (Pty) Ltd v Reegans Freight CC (37661/2009)

Paarl Web Gauteng (Pty) Ltd v Reegans Freight CC (37661/2009) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1145 (7 December 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37661/2009

Judge

Makgoka

The court held that Reegans Freight CC was bound by the credit agreement and liable for printing charges, despite claims of mistake, lack of authority, and a credit-limit defence.

• Contract Formation
• Unilateral Mistake
• Authority Of Members
• Credit Facilities
• Suretyship
• Estoppel

Combined Business Solutions CC v Courier & Freight Group (Pty) Ltd (325/09)

Combined Business Solutions CC v Courier & Freight Group (Pty) Ltd (325/09) [2010] ZASCA 93; [2011] 1 All SA 10 (SCA) (19 July 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

325/09

Judges

Nugent, Heher, Mlambo, Malan, Majiedt

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal for contractual damages, holding the appellant failed to prove loss caused by an alleged oral agreement breach.

• Oral Contract
• Damages For Breach
• Credit Facilities
• Burden Of Proof
• Oral-contract
• Damages-for-breach

Oos Vrystaat Kaap Bedryf Beperk v Verster N.O and Others (3723/2006)

Oos Vrystaat Kaap Bedryf Beperk v Verster N.O and Others (3723/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 125 (6 November 2006)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3723/2006

Judge

M B Molemela

The court found that, although the defendants' affidavit was confusing and lacked express denial of indebtedness, a bona fide defence of set-off could be gathered from its terms. The agreement between the parties incorporated the statutes of the plaintiff, which provided that credits accruing to a member should be utilised to liquidate outstanding debt. The court held that the contractual waiver of set-off did not take precedence over the statutes, and both documents must be read together. The use of the same account number for both the trust and the third defendant in statements and certific…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Set Off
• Credit Facilities
• Contractual Waiver

Botha (now Grissel) and Another v Finansredit (Pty) Ltd. (133/87)

Botha (now Grissel) and Another v Finansredit (Pty) Ltd. (133/87) [1989] ZASCA 56; [1989] 2 All SA 401 (A) (19 May 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

133/87

Judges

Hoexter, Nestadt, Milne, F H Grosskopf, Nicholas

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the suretyship agreements complied with the formal requirements of section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956, as all essential terms were embodied in the written documents signed by the appellants. The challenged clauses, including clause 7, were not contrary to public policy or unconscionable in the commercial context of the parties' dealings. The evidence did not establish any waiver or release of the appellants from their suretyship obligations, as no written consent was given by the respondent as required by the agreements, and administrat…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship
• Contract Formalities
• Public Policy
• Waiver Of Rights
• Conventional Penalties Act
• Credit Facilities