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
Gauteng Refinery (PTY) Ltd v Eloff (A3005/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 739; 2023 (2) SA 223 (GJ) (2 September 2022)
High Court appeal on summary judgment and counterclaim. The court held that failure to explain a counterclaim in the affidavit was not fatally defective.
Spark v Hard Hat Equipment Hire (PROPRIETARY) Limited : In re: Hard Hat Equipment Hire (PROPRIETARY) Limited v K2014137790 (PROPRIETARY) Limited (1319/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 428 (21 June 2022)
The court found that the suretyship agreement failed to comply with the formal requirements of section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956, as it did not properly identify the plaintiff as the creditor and instead bound the applicant as surety to the first defendant. This defect rendered the suretyship invalid and incapable of rectification. The court distinguished the present facts from Inventive Labour Structuring, where the principal debtor and surety were the same natural person, noting that here the parties were distinct legal entities but the document still failed to meet stat…
Source excerpt
ABSA Bank Limited v Ackerman (61678/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 472 (10 July 2014)
The court found that the applicant had complied with all formal requirements for voluntary surrender under the Insolvency Act and had made full and frank disclosure of her financial position, notwithstanding a minor error in the stated indebtedness, which was accepted as made in good faith. The court accepted the forced sale value as the appropriate measure for determining insolvency, rejecting ABSA's argument that market value should be used. The evidence showed that the applicant was commercially insolvent, unable to meet her obligations as they fell due, and that creditors would benefit fr…
Source excerpt
Inventive Labour Structuring (Pty) Ltd. v Corfe (31/2005) [2005] ZASCA 139; 2006 (3) SA 107 (SCA) (18 November 2005)
The court held that the deed of suretyship, on its face, identified the creditor, principal debtor, and surety, albeit with the same name for both debtor and surety. The contract was capable of two interpretations: either the surety and principal debtor were the same person, which would render the contract invalid, or they were two distinct parties with identical names, which would render the contract valid. The court preferred the latter interpretation to avoid invalidity. Since the formal requirements were met, and the parties' common intention was not reflected due to a mistake, rectificat…
Source excerpt
Milner Street Properties (Pty) Ltd v Eckstein Properties (Pty) Ltd (488/99) [2001] ZASCA 95; 2001 (4) SA 1315 (SCA); 64 SATC 60 (21 September 2001)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the formal written requirements introduced by the amendment to section 11(1)(e) of the Value Added Tax Act were probative, not constitutive. Their purpose was to provide certainty for the Commissioner regarding the nature of the transaction, not to invalidate agreements that failed to record the requirements in writing. The parties were in consensus that the sale was of an enterprise as a going concern and that the purchase price was inclusive of VAT at zero percent. The failure to record these facts in writing was due to ignorance of the amendment, not a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
