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
Dream World Investments 401 (Pty) Ltd v SMD Technologies (Pty) Ltd (55460/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 907 (11 September 2024)
The High Court granted leave to amend particulars of claim in a contract dispute over thermometers, holding the proposed amendment was not plainly excipiable.
Twenty Third Century Systems (Pty) Ltd and Another v SAP African Region (Pty) Ltd (2020/40953) [2022] ZAGPJHC 333 (16 May 2022)
The court held that the exclusion of liability and time bar clauses in the agreement between TTCS and SAP survive termination, even where the contract was repudiated by SAP. The court found these clauses to be analogous to arbitration clauses, which are intended to operate in the event of a dispute, including after termination. The agreement expressly provided for the survival of these clauses, and they were reciprocal in nature, applying to both parties. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument based on the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, distinguishing the present clauses from notic…
Source excerpt
Greater Newtown Development Company Soc Ltd v 1 Central Place Shisa Nyama (Pty)Ltd and Another (2017/31940) [2018] ZAGPJHC 105 (11 April 2018)
Summary judgment was granted in a commercial lease dispute, with ejectment, arrear rental, interest and costs ordered against the defendants.
Mpumelelo Projects Construction CC v Sasol Wax (Pty) Ltd (720/2007) [2014] ZAFSHC 3 (23 January 2014)
The plaintiff failed to prove any misrepresentation by the defendant that induced the contract. The evidence established that the general terms of sale, including exclusion and limitation of liability clauses, were incorporated into the contract by reference and acceptance through the credit application process. The MOU and business plan lacked sufficient specificity to constitute a binding supply agreement and amounted at best to an agreement to agree, which is unenforceable. The plaintiff did not plead or prove the existence of a legal duty of care in delict, nor did it establish negligence…
Source excerpt
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.
Viv's Tippers (Edms) Bpk v Pha Phama Staff Services (Edms) Bpk h/a Pha Phama Security (132/09) [2010] ZASCA 26; 2010 (4) SA 455 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 34 (SCA) (25 March 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the security guard in allowing the removal of the truck was not wrongful, and Pha Phama was not vicariously liable for the loss. The contract between Pha Phama and Lone Rock excluded liability for loss or damage, and public policy does not require the imposition of a delictual duty to third parties in these circumstances. Allowing such claims would undermine contractual arrangements and expose security providers to limitless liability. The exclusion clauses were clear and unambiguous, and the evidence did not establish negligence on the par…
Source excerpt
King and Others v The Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control (137/2008) [2009] ZASCA 44; 2010 (4) SA 185 (SCA) (12 May 2009)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs' claims are excluded by section 47(1)(g) of the Attorneys Act. The evidence showed that the moneys paid into Van Schalkwyks' trust account were intended to be invested in a factoring scheme operated by a third party, with the expectation of earning a profit. The acknowledgements of debt issued by Van Schalkwyks explicitly authorised investment of the capital on behalf of the creditor in the factoring scheme. The court found that each payment into the trust account amounted to an instruction to invest the money, thereby triggering the statut…
Source excerpt
Afrox Healthcare Bpk v Strydom (172/2001) [2002] ZASCA 73; 2002 (6) SA 21 (SCA) [2002] 4 All SA 125 (SCA) (31 May 2002)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the exclusionary clause in the hospital admission contract is valid and enforceable. The respondent's claim was based on contract, and he signed the admission document containing the clause, which excluded liability for negligence except for intentional misconduct. The court found no evidence of an unequal bargaining position or that the clause was objectively unexpected in hospital contracts. The clause does not contravene public policy or constitutional values, including section 27 of the Constitution, as it does not prevent access to medical care or un…
Source excerpt
Bayer South Africa (Pty) Ltd. and Another v Viljoen (401/88) [1989] ZASCA 121 (28 September 1989)
The appeal court held that the plaintiff failed to prove negligent misrepresentation, causation, or breach of contract over Bayleton and granted absolution from the instance.
Explore more
