South Africa Case Law

Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v Absa Bank Limited (028000/2023)

Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v Absa Bank Limited (028000/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 729 (21 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

028000/2023

Judge

Wilson

The court found that, although it disagreed with the reasoning of Justice Lamont, the existence of a prior judgment treating the two demands as one continuous act created a reasonable prospect that another court might reach a different conclusion. This factual issue was material to the outcome, as treating the demands as one would mean Absa Bank's rejection was effective against both, potentially defeating Exxaro Coal's claim. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to a Full Court of the division.

Source excerpt

• Demand Guarantee
• Leave To Appeal
• Payment Obligation
• Continuous Demand

Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Limited (2023/028000)

Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Limited (2023/028000) [2025] ZAGPJHC 499 (27 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/028000

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court found that ABSA was entitled to reject Exxaro's first demand, which was defective. However, the second demand was a separate act and required a distinct response. ABSA failed to reject the second demand within five days as required by the URDG, and thus was precluded from relying on any defects in that demand. The guarantee expired on 19 June 2020, and the second demand was made on that day, satisfying the requirement that the demand be received before expiry. The court rejected ABSA's argument that unconscionability was a valid defence, finding no unreasonable or excessive conduct…

Source excerpt

• Demand Guarantee
• Uniform Rules For Demand Guarantees
• Contractual Interpretation
• Issue Estoppel
• Unconscionability

Riskowitz Value Fund LP and Another v Mohamed Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/013086)

Riskowitz Value Fund LP and Another v Mohamed Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/013086) [2025] ZAGPJHC 483 (17 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/013086

Judge

De Oliveira

The High Court enforced a demand guarantee arising from settlement agreements and granted judgment for the applicants against the first respondent, with interest and punitive costs.

• Demand Guarantee
• Settlement Agreement
• Contractual Liability
• Guarantee Enforcement
• Demand-guarantees
• Settlement-agreements

EPCM Consultants SA (Pty) Ltd and Another v Guardrisk Insurance Co Ltd and Others (52933/2025)

EPCM Consultants SA (Pty) Ltd and Another v Guardrisk Insurance Co Ltd and Others (52933/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 428 (6 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

52933/2025

Judge

Mooki

The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to interdict Guardrisk from paying under the counter-guarantees. Their allegations of fraud related to TSK's conduct, not Guardrisk's, and there was no evidence that Guardrisk acted fraudulently or with knowledge of fraud. The applicants lacked standing, as they had no privity of contract or legal interest in the relationship between Guardrisk and SCB SA. The guarantees had not expired at the time of TSK's demand, and the applicants did not satisfy the requirements for an interdict, including balance of convenience and absence of alternat…

Source excerpt

• Interdict
• Demand Guarantee
• Fraud Exception
• Suretyship
• Performance Guarantee

Santam Limited v Shikita Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (35287/2017)

Santam Limited v Shikita Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (35287/2017) [2024] ZAGPJHC 892 (5 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

35287/2017

Judge

S McCafferty

High Court judgment enforcing a suretyship and indemnity for a guarantee claim, rejecting res judicata and NCA-based defences and granting judgment with interest and costs.

• Suretyship And Indemnity
• Demand Guarantee
• National Credit Act
• Condonation
• Res Judicata
• Constitutional Challenge

Nedbank Limited v Xanita (Pty) Limited (Previously Great Ideas Production Company (Pty) Limited) (885/2019)

Nedbank Limited v Xanita (Pty) Limited (Previously Great Ideas Production Company (Pty) Limited) (885/2019) [2023] ZAWCHC 230 (1 September 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

885/2019

Judge

Baartman

Leave to appeal was refused in a banking dispute over demand guarantees, with the court holding the applicant had paid its own debt and shown no prospects of success.

• Demand Guarantee
• Counter Guarantee
• Suretyship Vs Guarantee
• Leave To Appeal
• Enrichment Claim
• Demand-guarantee

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa v van der Merwe and Others (20420-2020)

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa v van der Merwe and Others (20420-2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 901 (14 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20420/2020

Judge

Adams

The court held that the guarantee agreement between the applicant and the first to third respondents created an autonomous obligation, independent of the underlying contract with Steval Engineering. The liability of the guarantors was triggered by the issuance of a Guarantee Claim Notice, which constituted a condition precedent to the applicant's claim. Prescription only began to run from the date the Guarantee Claim Notice was delivered, not from the date the underlying debt became due. The application was instituted within the prescription period, and the respondents' defence of prescriptio…

Source excerpt

• Demand Guarantee
• Performance Guarantee
• Prescription Act
• Contractual Liability
• Condition Precedent
• Attorney And Client Costs

Nedbank Limited v Xanita (Pty) Limited (885/2019)

Nedbank Limited v Xanita (Pty) Limited (885/2019) [2023] ZAWCHC 144 (12 June 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

885/2019

Judge

Baartman

The High Court held that Nedbank’s payment under demand guarantees discharged its own debt, not Xanita’s. It dismissed Nedbank’s recourse and enrichment claims.

• Demand Guarantee
• Suretyship Vs Guarantee
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Counter Guarantee Liability
• Demand-guarantee
• Suretyship-vs-guarantee

Consortium Comprising: KC Cottrell Co (Pty) Ltd and Another v Santam Limited and Others (Appeal) (2023/009986)

Consortium Comprising: KC Cottrell Co (Pty) Ltd and Another v Santam Limited and Others (Appeal) (2023/009986) [2023] ZAGPJHC 331 (17 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/009986

Judge

S D J Wilson

Leave to appeal was refused in a dispute over a construction demand guarantee. The court held the guarantee could be called on an honest allegation of breach.

• Demand Guarantee
• Interim Interdict
• Fraudulent Call On Guarantee
• Unconscionability
• Construction Contract
• Leave To Appeal

Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd v Constantia Insurance Company and Others (34068/2019)

Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd v Constantia Insurance Company and Others (34068/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 233 (15 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

34068/2019

Judge

M A Makume

High Court held that Group Five made valid demands under two construction guarantees, rejected fraud and prescription defences, and upheld Constantia’s indemnity claim.

• Demand Guarantee
• Indemnity
• Suretyship
• Prescription Act
• Urgent Application
• Fraud Allegation