South Africa Case Law

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa v Energy Fabrication (Pty) Ltd and Others (6855/2020)

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa v Energy Fabrication (Pty) Ltd and Others (6855/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 112 (22 February 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

6855/2020

Judge

Flatela L

The High Court granted leave to appeal on the R64.48 million revolving credit claim, but refused leave on the R122.01 million claim after summary judgment.

• Summary Judgment
• Facility Agreement
• Revolving Credit Facility
• Leave To Appeal
• Guarantee Interpretation
• Summary-judgment

Phenix Construction Technologies (Pty) Ltd and Another v Hollard Insurance Company Limited (10995/2015)

Phenix Construction Technologies (Pty) Ltd and Another v Hollard Insurance Company Limited (10995/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 210 (31 July 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10995/2015

Judge

Opperman

The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding the applicants had not shown reasonable prospects of success on the interpretation of a guarantee and recoupment terms.

• Leave To Appeal
• Guarantee Interpretation
• Motion Proceedings
• Recoupment
• Costs Award
• Leave-to-appeal

Zanbuild Constructions (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (2083/2009)

Zanbuild Constructions (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (2083/2009) [2009] ZAWCHC 225 (10 December 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2083/2009

Judge

Louw

The High Court granted condonation and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal over the interpretation of an Absa guarantee.

• Guarantee Interpretation
• Leave To Appeal
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Leave-to-appeal
• Condonation
• Guarantee-interpretation

Absa Bank Beperk v Vrystaat Ontwikkelingskorporasie (3360/2005)

Absa Bank Beperk v Vrystaat Ontwikkelingskorporasie (3360/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 13 (20 October 2005)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3360/2005

Judge

C.H.G. van der Merwe

The court found that the guarantee did not contain an unconditional acknowledgment of liability by the defendant. Liability was contingent upon the occurrence of certain registrations and the guarantee not being cancelled prior to such registrations. The guarantee therefore created only potential or conditional liability, not the unconditional liability required for a liquid document. As a result, the guarantee could not serve as the basis for provisional sentence. The court declined to address whether payment had been made in terms of the guarantee, as the application for provisional sentenc…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Sentence
• Liquid Document
• Guarantee Interpretation