South Africa Case Law

Umzwilili Environmental Solution v Rockwood Fund 1 GP (Pty) Ltd (2025/101302)

Umzwilili Environmental Solution v Rockwood Fund 1 GP (Pty) Ltd (2025/101302) [2025] ZAGPJHC 704 (21 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/101302

Judge

Z Khan

The Court found that the Applicant failed to establish fraud on the part of the First Respondent in its demand under the guarantees. The evidence did not support a finding of fraudulent intent, as the First Respondent acted transparently and responded to requests for clarification from the banks. The computation of the amount claimed was based on the First Respondent's interpretation of the guarantee wording, and any dispute regarding the correct methodology is subject to arbitration, not judicial intervention at this stage. The Applicant's concerns about overpayment and irrecoverability were…

Source excerpt

• Demand Guarantees
• Interim Interdict
• Fraud Exception
• Contractual Dispute
• Arbitration Clause

Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd v Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd and Another (099/2023; 150/24)

Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd v Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd and Another (099/2023; 150/24) [2025] ZASCA 64 (20 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

099/23; 150/24

Judges

Meyer, Matojane, Unterhalter, Phatshoane, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the three on-demand guarantees issued by Power Guarantees in favour of Set Square Developments were autonomous instruments, independent of the underlying construction contracts. The court found that Set Square complied with the requirements for calling up the guarantees by providing written demands and notices of termination due to contractor default. Power Guarantees' defences based on the alleged non-existence or difference of the underlying contracts were rejected, as the parties to those contracts performed their obligations and did not dispute their…

Source excerpt

• On Demand Guarantees
• Performance Bonds
• Fraud Exception
• Contractual Autonomy
• Mistake In Contract
• Unconscionability Exception

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

Imvula Roads and Civils (Pty) Ltd and Others v Holland Insurance Co. Ltd and Another (2024-104602)

Imvula Roads and Civils (Pty) Ltd and Others v Holland Insurance Co. Ltd and Another (2024-104602) [2025] ZAGPJHC 12 (14 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024-104602

Judge

Dosio

The court found that the guarantees in question are on-demand guarantees, requiring only a written demand and notice of termination from the beneficiary to trigger payment. The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to interdict payment, as they did not prove fraud or unconscionable conduct on the part of the second respondent. The court held that disputes regarding the validity of the contract termination are irrelevant to the guarantor's obligation to pay under an on-demand guarantee. The fraud exception is narrowly construed and was not established on the facts. The court furth…

Source excerpt

• Performance Guarantee
• Interim Interdict
• Fraud Exception
• Unconscionability
• Contract Termination
• Construction Contracts

Joint Venture Comprising Gorogang Plant Razz Civils and Others v Infiniti Insurance Limited (02252/2023)

Joint Venture Comprising Gorogang Plant Razz Civils and Others v Infiniti Insurance Limited (02252/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1048 (15 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

02252/2023

Judge

A W Pullinger

The High Court held that the performance guarantee was a demand guarantee, upheld the Department’s demand, rejected fraud and common-law arguments, and set aside the interim interdict.

• Performance Guarantee
• Interdictory Relief
• Fraud Exception
• Contractual Interpretation
• Development Of Common Law
• Performance-guarantee

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

Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Ltd and Another (2023/028000) [2024] ZAGPJHC 540 (6 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/028000

Judge

Fisher

The High Court dismissed TDS’s application to intervene in litigation over an on-demand guarantee, holding it lacked a direct and substantial legal interest and had not shown clear fraud.

• Joinder Of Parties
• On Demand Guarantee
• Fraud Exception
• Performance Guarantee
• Interdictory Relief
• Joinder

Innova Turnkey (Pty) Ltd and Others v Hollard Insurance Company Limited and Another (2023-134395)

Innova Turnkey (Pty) Ltd and Others v Hollard Insurance Company Limited and Another (2023-134395) [2024] ZAGPJHC 115 (9 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-134395

Judge

D Dosio

The court held that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to an interim interdict restraining payment under the on-demand guarantees. The guarantees are autonomous and must be honoured strictly according to their terms, irrespective of disputes under the underlying contract. The only recognised exception is fraud, which was not alleged or proven by the applicants. Disputes regarding certification, termination, or calculation of amounts are matters for arbitration and do not justify interference with the guarantor's obligation to pay. The applicants have alternative remedies a…

Source excerpt

• On Demand Guarantees
• Interim Interdict
• Autonomy Principle
• Fraud Exception
• Arbitration Clauses

Consortium Comprising and Another v Ltd Santam Limited and Others (2023/009986)

Consortium Comprising and Another v Ltd Santam Limited and Others (2023/009986) [2023] ZAGPJHC 187 (7 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/009986

Judge

S D J Wilson

High Court refused to interdict payment under an on-demand construction guarantee, holding the demand clause allowed a call on breach alone and no fraud was shown.

• Performance Guarantee
• On Demand Bond
• Interim Interdict
• Fraud Exception
• Construction Contracts
• On-demand-bond

Bechis v ABSA Insurance Company Limited (21730/19)

Bechis v ABSA Insurance Company Limited (21730/19) [2023] ZAGPJHC 172 (20 February 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21730/19

Judge

D Dosio

The court found that the guarantee had not expired and the claim had not prescribed, as the necessary steps to trigger deemed completion under the JBCC agreement were not taken by the contractor. The guarantee is independent of the JBCC agreement, and the defendant, not being a party to the JBCC agreement, cannot rely on its deeming provisions. The plaintiff complied with all requirements under both clause 5.2 and clause 4 of the guarantee, making valid demands within the prescribed period. The defendant failed to establish fraud, as there was no evidence of bad faith or material misrepresent…

Source excerpt

• Performance Guarantee
• Liquid Document
• Prescription
• Fraud Exception
• Construction Contracts

DBT Technologies (PTY) Ltd v Lombard Insurance Company Limited and Others (20/4174)

DBT Technologies (PTY) Ltd v Lombard Insurance Company Limited and Others (20/4174) [2022] ZAGPJHC 712 (20 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20/4174

Judge

Strydom

The High Court held that the seventh and eighth third parties were liable under an indemnity after Lombard settled a guarantee claim, and dismissed their defences.

• Performance Guarantee
• Indemnity
• Suretyship
• Fraud Exception
• Rectification
• Estoppel