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
Spangenberg and Others v Engelbrecht NO and Another (717/21) [2023] ZASCA 100 (14 June 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a will clearly granted habitatio over two plots, rejected extrinsic evidence, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Koster v Industrial Zone Limited and Others (25767/2006) [2021] ZAGPJHC 52 (16 February 2021)
The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and holding that the plaintiff’s vagueness argument on clause 22.3 was not enough.
Minister of Trade and Industry and Another v B Cool Produkte CC (5637/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 604 (12 September 2017)
The court found that while the particulars of claim and annexures exhibited ambiguity regarding whether the application for incentives was made by J Basson in his personal capacity or on behalf of B Cool Produkte CC, such ambiguity does not render the pleadings vague and embarrassing to the extent that the defendant is prejudiced at the exception stage. The court held that ambiguity in contractual documents is best resolved by leading extrinsic evidence at trial, not by upholding an exception. Prevailing case law requires the pleadings and annexures to be read as a whole, and exceptions shoul…
Source excerpt
Incredible Sand (Pty) Limited v Bucon Development and Construction (Pty) Limited and Another (90421/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 430 (2 August 2017)
The court considered whether a suretyship lacking the debtor’s name could be read with an acknowledged debt it referenced. It held the matter should proceed and refused provisional sentence.
Griekwaland Wes Korporatiewe Beperk v Karob Boerdery (EDMS) Bpk and Another (4573/2009) [2015] ZAFSHC 235 (3 December 2015)
The court found that the promissory note was unclear and that the applicant had not proven the applicable interest rate. The documentation regarding suretyship was misleading, and the second respondent demonstrated he was not bound as surety. Given the unusual facts and circumstances, there are reasonable prospects that another court may interpret the contract differently and reach a different conclusion. It would be impractical to grant leave to appeal only partially; therefore, leave to appeal is granted in full.
Source excerpt
Van Den Berg and Others v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (A170/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 967 (25 November 2015)
High Court appeal on whether suretyship forms signed in blank complied with section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act.
De Beer v Standard Bank of South Africa and Others (A 31/2014) [2014] ZAWCHC 117 (8 August 2014)
The High Court set aside summary judgment, holding that the suretyship did not comply with section 6 because it failed to identify the debtor in writing.
Edan Vehicle And Asset Finance (Pty) Ltd v Orthosmart (Pty) Ltd and Another (47986/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 291 (19 March 2014)
The court found that, applying the principles from the relevant authorities, the suretyship agreement in question, although not expressly naming the principal debtor in the relevant paragraph, sufficiently identifies the principal debtor and the underlying rental agreement by reference to the agreement number and particulars. The essential terms of the suretyship are ascertainable from the document and supporting evidence, and the second defendant did not dispute signing the document or receiving an explanation of its contents. The court held that extrinsic evidence may be used to clarify ide…
Source excerpt
Structured Mezzanine Investments (Pty) Ltd v Basson NO and Others (22732/2009) [2013] ZAWCHC 63 (24 April 2013)
The court found that the deed of suretyship was valid and enforceable. Although the final signed loan agreement was not attached to the suretyship at the time of signing, the material terms of the principal debt were sufficiently identified through extrinsic evidence, including the facility letter, trustees' resolution, and correspondence. The court held that section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act does not require the principal obligation to exist at the time of signing the suretyship, and incorporation by reference is permissible if the referenced document is identifiable. The respondent…
Source excerpt
Bothma-Botha Transport (Edms) Bpk v S Bothma & Seun Transport (Edms) Bpk (3092/2010) [2012] ZAFSHC 122 (21 June 2012)
The court interpreted a settlement clause on tank rentals and expenses, and dismissed both the contractual and delictual claims with costs.
Explore more
