South Africa Case Law

Dephetogo Trading CC v Minister responsible for the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment and Another (019199-2024)

Dephetogo Trading CC v Minister responsible for the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment and Another (019199-2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 817 (20 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

019199-2024

Judge

C Collis

The High Court struck the urgent application from the roll, finding the applicant failed to prove urgency or why substantial redress could not be obtained later.

• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Contract Cancellation
• Declaratory Relief
• Interdictory Relief
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Urgency-in-motion-proceedings

Maseko and Another v Allandins Ring Trading 519cc and Another (1691/2023)

Maseko and Another v Allandins Ring Trading 519cc and Another (1691/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 107 (15 April 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1691/2023

Judge

M.T. Jordaan

The High Court partially upheld an exception to particulars of claim in a building-contract dispute, striking the claim against the second defendant but dismissing the other grounds.

• Exception Procedure
• Building Contract Dispute
• Misjoinder
• Contra Preferentem Rule
• Specific Performance
• Damages For Breach Of Contract

Aludar Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service and Another (A2022-005788)

Aludar Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service and Another (A2022-005788) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1783 (9 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A2022-005788

Judges

SJ Cowen, L Barit

High Court appeal over absolution from the instance in a SARS tender dispute for bulletproof vests. The court held no binding contract was proved.

• Government Tender Contracts
• Repudiation
• Absolution From The Instance
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Government-tender-contracts
• Absolution-from-instance

Goliath and Another v Chicory SA (Pty) Ltd (3382/2018)

Goliath and Another v Chicory SA (Pty) Ltd (3382/2018) [2023] ZAECMKHC 38 (7 February 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

3382/2018

Judge

JGA Laing

Leave to appeal was refused in a chicory crop-damages dispute. The court held the pre-trial admission was too vague to determine legal effect and criticised counsel’s language.

• Leave To Appeal
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Supervening Impossibility
• Costs Order
• Professional Conduct
• Leave-to-appeal

Van Rensburg v Electrogrid (Pty) Limited (27845/2018)

Van Rensburg v Electrogrid (Pty) Limited (27845/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 406 (7 September 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

27845/2018

Judge

LT Modiba

The High Court held that the contract was for an off-grid solar system, not a start-up battery system, and ordered repayment of the contract price plus costs.

• Contractual Misrepresentation
• Specific Performance
• Expert Evidence
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Contract-law
• Breach-of-contract

Ferreira v Rademeyer (1256/15)

Ferreira v Rademeyer (1256/15) [2021] ZAECPEHC 13 (23 February 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1256/15

Judge

Govindjee

The court held that the service of the original application for specific performance, cancellation, and damages interrupted prescription for the damages claim in terms of section 15(1) of the Prescription Act. The subsequent damages action is based on the same cause of action as the original proceedings, and the judicial interruption of prescription has not lapsed under section 15(2), even though two processes were required to bring the matter to conclusion. The court found that the defendant's argument that the damages claim prescribed three years after the order was inconsistent with the pu…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Judicial Interruption Of Prescription
• Specific Performance
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Declaratory Relief
• Enforcement Of Judgments

MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd v Belet Industries CC t/a Belet Cellular (1077/2019)

MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd v Belet Industries CC t/a Belet Cellular (1077/2019) [2021] ZASCA 7 (15 January 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1077/2019

Judges

Zondi, Schippers, Nicholls, Weiner, Goosen

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed MTN’s appeal, holding that its cancellation was an unjustified repudiation and that Belet could claim damages.

• Contractual Repudiation
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Contractual Interpretation
• Non Variation Clause
• Indemnity Clause
• Quantification Of Damages

du Toit v Curlewis and Another (78194/18)

du Toit v Curlewis and Another (78194/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 602 (23 October 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

78194/18

Judge

T P Mudau

The High Court dismissed an exception to pleaded damages claims against attorneys, holding the amended particulars disclosed a cause of action.

• Professional Negligence
• Breach Of Attorney Mandate
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Prescription Of Claims
• Close Corporation Membership
• Rei Vindicatio

Ackerman v Collect NO and Others ; Ackerman v Collect NO and Others (234/2017; 1650 /2017)

Ackerman v Collect NO and Others ; Ackerman v Collect NO and Others (234/2017; 1650 /2017) [2020] ZAECGHC 57 (26 May 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

234/2017; 1650/2017

Judge

G H Bloem

The court partly upheld the plaintiff’s claims over farm assets and a loan, dismissed the livestock claim and market-rental counterclaim, and apportioned costs.

• Trustee Liability
• Oral Lease Agreement
• Ownership Of Movables
• Accession
• Counterclaim
• Damages For Breach Of Contract

Markit Systems (Pty) Limited v Fulcrum Group (Pty) Limited (2018/39734)

Markit Systems (Pty) Limited v Fulcrum Group (Pty) Limited (2018/39734) [2020] ZAGPJHC 139 (18 May 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/39734

Judge

L R Adams

The court found that the issues raised in the defendant's special plea, specifically the right to cancel the agreement due to failure to agree on the BRD, are inextricably intertwined with the plaintiff's claim for damages based on alleged breach of contract. The events leading to the cancellation and the defendant's obligation to cooperate in developing the BRD are central to both parties' cases. As such, the issues cannot be conveniently separated for adjudication under rule 33(4). The application for separation of issues was therefore refused. The defendant, as the unsuccessful party, was…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Issues
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 33 4
• Contractual Repudiation
• Damages For Breach Of Contract