South Africa Case Law

Pooling and Sharing Joint Venture, A Joint Venture Established between Richtersveld Mining Company (Pty) Ltd and Alexkor Limited v Alexander Bay Diamond Company (Pty) Ltd (Previously Known as Scarlet Sky Investment 60 (Pty) Ltd (2129/2020)

Pooling and Sharing Joint Venture, A Joint Venture Established between Richtersveld Mining Company (Pty) Ltd and Alexkor Limited v Alexander Bay Diamond Company (Pty) Ltd (Previously Known as Scarlet Sky Investment 60 (Pty) Ltd (2129/2020) [2025] ZANCHC 42 (23 May 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2129/2020

Judge

MC Mamosebo

High Court decision granting leave to amend pleadings in a contract dispute, rejecting objections that the amendment application was procedurally defective or excipiable.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Excipiability
• Illegal Contract
• State Procurement
• Diamonds Act Compliance
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Fumile Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (60250/2018; 86068/2018)

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Fumile Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (60250/2018; 86068/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 399 (14 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

60250/2018; 86068/2018

Judge

le Grange

The High Court dismissed the Minister’s enrichment claim and Fumile’s counterclaim after finding that neither illegality nor the value of services was proved.

• Unjustified Enrichment
• Illegal Contract
• Counterclaim
• Proof Of Services
• Costs Order
• Unjustified-enrichment

Zascotime (Pty) Ltd v Abrina 3765 (Pty) Ltd t/a BMW Sandton (A5014 / 2022 ; 35714 / 2020)

Zascotime (Pty) Ltd v Abrina 3765 (Pty) Ltd t/a BMW Sandton (A5014 / 2022 ; 35714 / 2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 677 (9 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5014 / 2022

Judges

Mia, Windell, Wilson

The court found that the appellant had exclusive knowledge of the pending litigation with the City of Johannesburg and the illegality of the advertising sign. The appellant failed to disclose these material facts to the respondent, which would have influenced the respondent's decision to enter into the agreement. The moratorium relied upon by the appellant did not apply, as the appellant had not entered into the required agreement with the City of Johannesburg to regularise the sign. The court held that the appellant's non-disclosure constituted a breach of its duty to disclose material infor…

Source excerpt

• Non Disclosure
• Contractual Validity
• Illegal Contract
• Duty To Disclose
• Restitution
• Municipal Bylaws

Bravospan 252 CC v Greater Tzaneen Municipality (393/2018)

Bravospan 252 CC v Greater Tzaneen Municipality (393/2018) [2021] ZALMPPHC 3 (2 February 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

393/2018

Judge

E M Makgoba

The court found that the defendant was unjustly enriched by accepting and benefiting from the plaintiff's security services for 24 months under an addendum to the service level agreement, which was later declared void for non-compliance with procurement laws. Despite the invalidity, the defendant requested in writing that services continue and obtained legal advice confirming enrichment. The defendant failed to plead or prove non-enrichment or loss of enrichment and presented no evidence. The court rejected the defendant's special pleas of res judicata, non-compliance with statutory notice, a…

Source excerpt

• Unjust Enrichment
• Illegal Contract
• Public Procurement
• Prescription
• Res Judicata
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State

M & E Tools v Dave Sheer Gunsmithing and Firearms Exchange CC (70131/2011)

M & E Tools v Dave Sheer Gunsmithing and Firearms Exchange CC (70131/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 733 (26 September 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

70131/2011

Judge

P.A. Meyer

High Court judgment on an illegal arms-trading contract, allowing restitution to the plaintiff because equity and public policy favoured relief.

• Illegal Contract
• Unjust Enrichment
• Condictio Indebiti
• Public Policy Exception
• National Conventional Arms Control Act
• Illegal-contract

Grindrod Bank Limited v Torode N.O and Others (55503/11)

Grindrod Bank Limited v Torode N.O and Others (55503/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 281 (13 May 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

55503/2011

Judge

A.M.L. Phatudi

The court held the loan was an unlawful financial assistance transaction under section 38(1) and dismissed both the bank’s claim and the counterclaim.

• Illegal Contract
• Financial Assistance For Share Acquisition
• Section 38 Companies Act
• In Pari Delicto
• Counter Claim
• Costs Order

Planet Waves 581 (Pty) Ltd v Newman (10020/2012)

Planet Waves 581 (Pty) Ltd v Newman (10020/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 19 (27 February 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10020/2012

Judge

Mathopo

The respondent's occupation and use of the property is in clear contravention of both the lease agreement and the Bedfordview Town Planning Scheme, which permits only residential use. The respondent failed to obtain the necessary consent from the local authority and operated a business that, based on undisputed advertising material, constitutes adult erotic entertainment masquerading as a massage parlour. The purported consent from Roos cannot legalise an illegal use, and the lease agreement is void to the extent that it facilitates unlawful conduct. The local authority need not be joined as…

Source excerpt

• Eviction
• Town Planning Scheme
• Unlawful Occupation
• Locus Standi
• Non Joinder
• Illegal Contract

Botha NO and Another v Gazit Properties (EDMS) Beperk (6575/08)

Botha NO and Another v Gazit Properties (EDMS) Beperk (6575/08) [2010] ZAGPPHC 116 (15 September 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

6575/08

Judge

T J Kruger

The court set aside payments made by an insolvent company to a lender as voidable preferences, finding they were not in the ordinary course of business.

• Insolvent Estate
• Voidable Preference
• Ordinary Course Of Business
• Banking Regulation
• Illegal Contract
• Return Of Payments

Moodaley and Others v King (800/2008)

Moodaley and Others v King (800/2008) [2009] ZANCHC 52 (30 October 2009)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

800/2008

Judge

F DIALE KGOMO

The court found that the contracts entered into by the plaintiffs with the defendant were part of an illegal pyramid scheme and thus void insofar as they purported to grant excessive interest. However, South African law allows recovery of the capital invested, even where the contract is tainted by illegality, provided the claim is not for the illegal interest. The plaintiffs were entitled to restitution of their capital investments, but not the usurious interest. The court awarded the plaintiffs repayment of their capital, less any amounts already repaid, and interest at a reasonable rate fro…

Source excerpt

• Pyramid Scheme
• Illegal Contract
• Restitution
• Usurious Interest